State v. Ismael Serda
13-15-00178-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 23, 2015Background
- Cerda was stopped by Officer Castro after a chase by an unknown pickup; Castro admitted making the stop without observing traffic violations.
- The pursuing vehicle had no visible police markings or emergency lights; Cerda believed it chased him and feared for safety.
- Stop was based on dispatch information, not Officer Castro’s personal observations.
- State failed to present cooper ating officers or police reports at suppression hearing; hearsay evidence was excluded.
- Trial court granted suppression, finding no evidence of observed violations or reasonable suspicion; ruling supported on law-of-necessity theories.
- Appellee’s motion to suppress was granted; State’s appeal argues about cooperation and missing witnesses, but the court’s ruling remains grounded in the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was reasonable suspicion for the stop | State contends dispatch info gave reasonable suspicion | Cerda argues no officer observations supported a stop | No; suppression affirmed |
| Whether hearsay from cooperating officers was admissible | State argues cooperating officers’ statements should be admitted | Cerda argues hearsay excluded; no live testimony | No; hearsay properly excluded, suppression upheld |
| Whether Cerda consented to the encounter | State argues consensual encounter; no coercion | Cerda asserts lack of consent to pursue | No; encounter was not consensual, suppression upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Woodard, 341 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; live testimony required)
- State v. Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (basis for evaluating reasonable suspicion and evidence admissibility)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (cooperation of officers and admissibility considerations)
- Wade v. State, 422 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (police-citizen interaction; consensual encounter analysis not applicable here)
- Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (determinative test for seizure; totality of circumstances)
- Spakes v. State, 913 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (necessity defense framework cited by court)
- Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reasonableness of suspicion; live testimony required)