State v. Israel Ramirez
13-14-00680-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 27, 2015Background
- Officers responded to a disturbance; Israel Ramirez and others were at the scene.
- Ramirez’s sister, Lori, told officers she believed Israel “had heroin on him.”
- Ramirez attempted to walk away, appeared nervous, tried to avoid officers, and frequently reached into his right front pocket.
- Officers detained Ramirez briefly, he consented to empty his pocket, and officer Garcia retrieved a keychain with a closed silver, capsule-shaped container attached.
- Garcia, experienced in ~150 drug investigations and familiar with similar containers, opened the capsule and found what he believed to be black tar heroin.
- Ramirez moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court granted the motion. The State appealed arguing probable cause supported searching/opening the capsule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had probable cause to search/open the capsule on Ramirez’s keychain | Sister’s on-scene tip that Ramirez had heroin, plus Ramirez’s nervous, evasive behavior and repeated reaching into pocket, and officer’s training/experience with similar containers amounted to probable cause to open the capsule | No probable cause existed to search the closed capsule; the tip and surrounding conduct were insufficient to justify opening it | The State argues the facts (tip + corroborating conduct + officer experience) established probable cause; the trial court had suppressed, and the State asks appellate reversal (court of appeals review is de novo for legal question) |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (discussing probable-cause standard for searches)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. Crim. App.) (consider officer training/experience in probable-cause analysis)
- Dixon v. State, 206 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App.) (de novo review for search reasonableness)
- Baldwin v. State, 278 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. Crim. App.) (probable cause concept and standard)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App.) (furtive movements/avoidance as factors in probable-cause analysis)