Miller v. State
345 S.W.3d 616
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Miller was charged with possession of methamphetamine under one gram and moved to suppress evidence from a warrantless search; after denial, she pled guilty and received deferred adjudication for five years; she appeals the suppression ruling.
- At suppression, deputies encountered a disturbance at Miller’s apartment, observed Miller intoxicated and distressed, and entered with her consent.
- Inside, deputies observed items suggesting a disturbance and recovered tin foil with residue and a roach; Miller grabbed a marijuana cigarette and officers seized drugs found in plain view on the microwave.
- The officers waited for a warrant check; Miller repeatedly asked them to leave, and the entry-to-seizure time was under six minutes.
- An audio recording corroborated the events; the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on remand, and the appellate court ultimately upheld the denial of the suppression motion.
- The court affirmed that the emergency doctrine and Miller’s consent justified the continued presence and the plain-view seizure, distinguishing Hobbs and relying on Georgia v. Randolph and related authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether emergency doctrine allowed entry after consent revoked | Miller argues they must leave once consent is revoked | State contends emergency doctrine justified remaining | Affirmed; emergency doctrine supported continued presence |
| Whether evidence obtained in plain view during the emergency was admissible | N/A/Miller would challenge seizure after revocation | Plain-view seizure during legitimate emergency activities admissible | Affirmed; plain-view evidence seized during emergency activities admissible |
| Whether the trespass argument invalidates the seizure | Hobbs rule applied; consent and emergency doctrine control | Hobbs distinguishable; consent and emergency doctrine bar suppression | Affirmed; Hobbs distinguished; no suppression based on trespass |
Key Cases Cited
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (factors for suppression review; deference to factual findings)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (consent to waive Fourth Amendment rights; entry based on consent)
- Laney v. State, 117 S.W.3d 854 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (emergency doctrine applicable to residence; plain-view seizure permitted during emergency)
- Hobbs v. State, 824 S.W.2d 317 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1992) (distinguishable; trespass-based exclusion not applicable here)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2006) (distinguishes between entering to protect and searching with consent of one co-tenant)
- United States v. Ho, 94 F.3d 932 (5th Cir.1996) (withdrawal of consent; information obtained before revocation can sustain investigation)
- United States v. Sterling, 909 F.2d 1078 (7th Cir.1990) (consent interrogation observations may support later detention)