State of Texas v. Copeland, Shirley
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 749
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Deputy observed SUV near a house known for illegal-narcotics activity; a passenger, Copeland, near the house briefly and returned to the SUV before it left.
- Deputy stopped the SUV driver, Danish, for a traffic violation and sought consent to search the SUV; Copeland refused.
- Copeland claimed to own the SUV though not listed on registration; she and Danish claimed common-law marriage.
- Deputy found two Tramadol pills during the search after Danish consent; Copeland was arrested for possession of a dangerous drug.
- Copeland moved to suppress on two grounds: (a) extended detention exceeding Terry limits, and (b) Randolph-based suppression of vehicular searches; trial court ruled on the Randolph ground; Court of Appeals affirmed on that basis.
- Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding Randolph does not apply to vehicular searches and remanded for consideration of the other ground; majority opinion declined to extend Randolph to vehicles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Randolph applies to vehicular searches | Copeland; Randolph should apply where a co-occupant objects | State; Randolph is limited to residences; does not apply to vehicles | Randolph does not apply to vehicular searches |
| Whether common-law marriage status affects standing to challenge search | Copeland’s claimed common-law marriage gives standing | State; standing issues should be resolved consistently; not essential if Randolph inapplicable | Standing/ownership considerations addressed separately; focus remained on Randolph applicability |
| Who may consent to search a stopped vehicle when driver and passenger disagree | If both have equal authority, a denial by one bars the other’s consent | Driver’s consent may be insufficient if passenger has equal control | Under vehicle context, driver’s consent alone does not automatically authorize search; Randolph not applied; later law governs |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (recognizes third-party consent by one with common authority over premises or effects)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (holding limited to present, objecting co-occupant in residences)
- Welch v. State, 93 S.W.3d 50 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (vehicular search principles involving third-party consent in Texas contexts; distinguishes from Randolph)
- Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (driver’s authority to consent; employee as driver; mutual use controls)
- Houston v. State, 286 S.W.3d 604 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2009) (cited for vehicle consent context; pre Randolph framework)
- State v. Bassano, 827 S.W.2d 557 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1992) (standing or third-party consent considerations in Texas)
- Matlock (see above), — (—) (see United States v. Matlock)