Rodriguez, Mikenzie Renee, PD-1391-15

Appellee Mikenzie Rodriguez was arrested after police searched her university dorm room without a warrant.
Dorm personnel/RA involvement was alleged by the State as justification for entry; trial evidence showed officers did not obtain consent from Rodriguez, her roommate, or dorm staff.
Trial court granted Rodriguez’s motion to suppress; the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling.
The State sought discretionary review, arguing the appeals court applied the wrong standard (alleging it should consider the totality of circumstances rather than deferential review), sought a balancing test for dorm searches, and disputed the appeals court’s treatment of the plain-view/consent issues.
The appellee (Rodriguez) argues the Eleventh Court correctly applied abuse-of-discretion review, properly required clear-and-convincing proof of consent, and correctly found no warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances justified the search.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rodriguez)	Held
1. Standard of review for suppression ruling	Appeals court should apply a de novo/totality-of-the-circumstances test rather than deferential abuse-of-discretion review	Appeals court properly applied abuse-of-discretion to trial court findings and reviewed legal questions accordingly	Eleventh Court applied correct deferential standard; no abuse of discretion shown in appellate review
2. Validity of warrantless dorm search (consent/plain-view/exigent)	Dorm-contract and campus-safety interests lessen expectation of privacy; search was minimal or justified by administrative authority/plain view	University administrative authority cannot supply police with consent for criminal-investigative searches; State failed to prove consent, warrant, or exigency by clear and convincing evidence	Court held student dorm has Fourth Amendment protection; State failed to prove consent or exigent circumstances; suppression affirmed
3. Alleged conflict with Grubbs and need for new rule for dorm searches	Eleventh Court’s decision conflicts with Grubbs and creates uncertainty; Court should adopt a balancing test for campus safety vs. privacy	No conflict: Grubbs permits administrative health/safety checks but does not authorize law-enforcement searches without consent/warrant/exigency; courts may distinguish facts	No conflict found; Eleventh Court distinguished Grubbs (consent present there) and declined to create new law

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (consent exception and voluntariness assessed under totality of circumstances)
Grubbs v. State, 177 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (college housing contract allowed administrative entry; resident consent present there)
State v. Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (appellate review principle: view evidence in light most favorable to trial court’s ruling)
State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (deference to trial court fact findings and credibility in suppression rulings)
Meeks v. State, 692 S.W.2d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (consent voluntariness determined by totality of circumstances)