State v. Kimberly Ford, 13-15-00031-CR

Kimberly Ford was indicted for possession of methamphetamine (<4 grams) after a store employee (Maria Molina) reported suspicious behavior; Officer M. Rogers prepared a police report describing the encounter.
Ford filed a Motion to Suppress; the suppression hearing was set and reset multiple times because the State could not produce its main witness (Officer Rogers) and did not produce the informant (Molina).
At the hearing the State introduced an unsworn police report (Officer Rogers’ narrative) as its only evidence; the defense objected to admissibility and to hearsay concerns.
The reported facts: Ford had items in a shopping cart, told the officer she was still shopping and intended to pay, and did not attempt to leave; Molina allegedly said Ford entered with an empty purse and placed items inside.
The trial court found the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Ford and lacked probable cause to arrest or to justify a search incident to arrest; the court granted the Motion to Suppress.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ford)	Held
1. Did officer have reasonable suspicion to detain Ford?	Informant tip and officer’s observations justified investigatory stop.	Tip was unreliable, not corroborated; Ford was shopping, cooperative, and had not committed or attempted theft.	Trial court found no reasonable suspicion; suppression granted (appellee urges affirmance).
2. Did officer have probable cause to arrest Ford?	Officer reasonably believed Ford intended to deprive the store of merchandise.	Ford explained she would pay; visible cart and cooperation negated specific intent to steal.	Trial court found no probable cause to arrest; suppression granted (appellee urges affirmance).
3. Was search of purse lawful as incident to arrest?	Search incident to arrest exception justified seizure.	Arrest was unlawful; no valid basis to search purse; expectation of privacy remained.	Trial court held search was not incident to a lawful arrest and evidence must be suppressed; appellee asks appellate court to affirm.

Akin v. Dahl, 661 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. 1983) (probable cause standard explained)
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) (informant tip can justify investigatory stop if sufficiently corroborated)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (confrontation and hearsay issues regarding testimonial statements)
Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reasonable-suspicion standard for investigative stops)
Martinez v. State, 348 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (trial court as sole factfinder in suppression hearings)
Sims v. State, 980 S.W.2d 538 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1998) (burden shifts to State to justify warrantless seizure)
State v. Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (distinguishing consensual encounter from investigatory detention)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (foundational articulable-suspicion principle for stops)
Thompson v. State, 244 S.W.3d 357 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006) (specific intent requirement for theft)
State v. Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars, 136 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2004) (limits on investigative stops and unrelated searches)
Stewart v. State, 611 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (privacy interest and scope of searches)
Hawkins v. State, 214 S.W.3d 668 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007) (contextual factors relevant to inferring intent to deprive)