Schenk, Stephanie Ann
PD-0664-15
| Tex. | Jun 1, 2015Background
- Around 11:38 p.m. on March 7, 2012, Plano PD Officer Michael White stopped a Ford Taurus for traffic violations; three occupants (driver Bertrand, owner Chaudoir, passenger Schenk) were ordered out and seated on the curb.
- Officer White called for backup; a second officer arrived ~6 minutes later. Officers questioned occupants about drug use, searched the car, and found a marijuana pipe in a rear pocket.
- Officer White then asked Schenk about her purse (on the front passenger seat); she first said no drugs, then admitted she had something and said the officer could take it. A baggie containing a crystal-like substance tested positive in the field as methamphetamine.
- Schenk was arrested; she moved to suppress (arguing Miranda/custody, unlawful prolongation of stop, involuntary consent, and inadequate Cullen findings). The trial court denied suppression and entered extensive findings.
- Schenk pleaded guilty, received one-year deferred adjudication, appealed; the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed and denied rehearing. Schenk petitioned for discretionary review to the Court of Criminal Appeals raising four grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schenk) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Miranda/custody: whether Schenk was "in custody" when questioned and before purse search | The stop and officers' conduct (armed guard, separation, questioning about drugs, guarded purse) would make a reasonable person feel restrained comparable to formal arrest, so Miranda warnings were required | Routine traffic stop did not escalate to custodial interrogation; questioning was a general inquiry directed to all occupants and Schenk was not physically restrained or handcuffed | Court: Not custodial for Miranda; facts more like Estrada than Ortiz; no Miranda violation found (affirmed) |
| 2. Length/scope of stop: whether detention was unreasonably prolonged beyond traffic-stop purposes | After background/warrant checks cleared, occupants should have been free to leave; continuation to investigate drugs unlawfully prolonged the stop (Rodriguez applies) | Issue not preserved at suppression hearing; trial court never given that specific argument, so waived; even on merits detention was reasonable | Court: Waived for appellate review; issue overruled |
| 3. Consent to search purse: whether Schenk’s consent was voluntary or tainted by coercion/illegal detention | Consent was coerced and tainted by an unlawful detention; State must prove voluntariness by clear and convincing evidence | Even absent voluntary consent, officer had probable cause (marijuana pipe) to search the vehicle and containers inside, including passenger purse (Wyoming v. Houghton) | Court: Search lawful on probable-cause/vehicle-search basis; consent voluntariness need not be resolved (affirmed) |
| 4. Cullen findings: whether the trial court's findings/conclusions satisfied Cullen v. State | Trial court's findings purportedly include improper, unsupported, or conclusory facts and thus fail Cullen’s requirement for essential findings | Trial court entered 57 findings/conclusions; appellant did not show any dispositive finding was omitted | Court: Findings adequate under Cullen because no essential dispositive finding was omitted (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits vehicle searches incident to arrest once scene is secure)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (traffic stop cannot be prolonged beyond mission for unrelated dog sniff; even short delays can be unreasonable)
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999) (probable cause to search vehicle extends to containers belonging to passengers)
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) (officer may order passengers out of a vehicle during a traffic stop)
- State v. Ortiz, 382 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (custody for Miranda is an objective inquiry—would a reasonable person feel restrained comparable to formal arrest)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (scope of detention must be tailored to stop’s purpose; consent tainted by illegal detention)
- Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (investigative detention must be temporary and limited to stop’s purposes)
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standards for traffic-stop related inquiries and proof of articulable facts)
- Sharpe v. United States, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) (authority on permissible length of stop and related inquiry)
- United States v. Dortch, 199 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that a person is not free to leave where police retain identifying documents)
- United States v. Macias, 648 F.3d 506 (5th Cir. 2011) (detention beyond time needed for original mission requires reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity)
- Meeks v. State, 692 S.W.2d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (State must prove consent was freely and voluntarily given by clear and convincing evidence)