State of Texas v. Ortiz, Octavio
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1386
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Appellee Ortiz was stopped for speeding on US 87; during the stop he and his wife were questioned, leading to discovery of cocaine and Ortiz’s arrest.
- Ortiz admitted on-scene drug involvement and that he was on probation for drugs; officers later found a kilo of cocaine on Mrs. Ortiz.
- Two backup officers arrived; Mrs. Ortiz was pat-searched and handcuffed; Ortiz was handcuffed shortly after.
- Interrogation occurred in Spanish/English; Ortiz was not Mirandized before cocaine statements were made.
- Trial court suppressed the cocaine statements, ruling Ortiz was in custody for Miranda purposes at that time; the State appealed.
- Court of Appeals affirmed suppression, holding Ortiz was in custody; State sought discretionary review, which this Court granted to reexamine the custody determination and whether the stop escalated to custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ortiz was in custody for Miranda purposes when he made the cocaine statements. | Ortiz (State) argues not in custody; stop remained non-custodial. | Ortiz argues custody existed due to escalation and multiple officers. | Yes; the Court held Ortiz was in custody when he made the cocaine statements. |
| Whether the Dowthitt categories must be satisfied to find custody. | Dowthitt categories required to classify custody. | Dowthitt categories are descriptive, not exhaustive; custody assessed case-by-case. | Dowthitt categories are descriptive; custody determined ad hoc based on objective factors. |
| Whether the objective circumstances collectively show custody despite lack of Miranda warnings. | Objective factors insufficient to convert stop to custody. | Objective circumstances—suspicion, handcuffing, multiple officers, and disclosures—support custody. | The aggregation of circumstances supported custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (limits of Miranda custody during ordinary traffic stops; custodial trigger depends on degree of restraint)
- Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (ad hoc custody analysis; four illustrative categories may constitute custody but are not exhaustive)
- Shiflet v. State, 732 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (descriptive custody categories later refined by Dowthitt/Beheler/Stansbury)
- Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 324 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1994) (custody analysis; objective factors govern; subjective belief of suspect not considered unless manifested to suspect)
- Beheler v. California, 463 U.S. 1121 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (Beheler/Stansbury standard for when police-initiated questions during detention become custodial interrogation)
- Beheler; Stansbury cited in Dowthitt context, — (—) (used to refine when a stop becomes custody; degree of restraint tied to arrest)