494 S.W.3d 690
Tex.2016Background
- Officers, acting on a confidential informant’s tip about a white SUV carrying drugs and likely armed driver, stopped Miguel Herrera at a pool hall and frisked him; they found a gun, arrested him, and later discovered drugs during an inventory search of his 2004 Lincoln Navigator.
- The State initiated a Chapter 59 civil-forfeiture action seeking forfeiture of the Navigator as contraband.
- Herrera moved to suppress the vehicle evidence as fruit of an unlawful stop/search; the trial court granted suppression and denied forfeiture; the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review to decide whether illegally obtained evidence must be excluded in a Chapter 59 civil-forfeiture proceeding and whether Chapter 59 requires lawful seizure as a prerequisite to forfeiture.
- The Court held that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to Chapter 59 civil-forfeiture proceedings and that Chapter 59 provides no statutory exclusionary remedy or procedural prerequisite requiring the State to prove a lawful seizure; it reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fourth Amendment/exclusionary rule bars use of evidence obtained by unlawful search in Chapter 59 civil-forfeiture | Herrera: illegally obtained evidence must be excluded in the forfeiture proceeding | State: exclusionary rule does not apply to civil forfeiture; evidence admissible | Exclusionary rule does not apply to Chapter 59 civil-forfeiture; evidence admissible absent statutory exclusion |
| Whether Chapter 59 requires the State to prove the seizure was lawful before forfeiture may proceed | Herrera: art. 59.03(b) limits seizures and the State must show compliance (or remedy follows) | State: art. 59.03 is permissive authority for lawful seizures and does not create a forfeiture precondition | Chapter 59 does not require proof of lawful seizure as prerequisite; statute predicates forfeiture on contraband, not how seized |
| Whether art. 59.03(b) creates a statutory exclusion remedy for evidence or property seized unlawfully | Herrera: art. 59.03(b) limits officer authority and implies exclusion when violated | State: art. 59.03(b) only authorizes lawful seizure methods and does not supply an exclusionary remedy | Art. 59.03(b) limits seizure authority but Chapter 59 contains no statutory exclusion remedy; courts should not judicially supply one |
| Whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain/frisk Herrera and search passenger area (concurrence) | Herrera: officers lacked corroboration and reasonable suspicion; stop/search unlawful | State: informant corroboration, furtive movement, location, and tip about being armed supported reasonable suspicion | In concurrence, Justice Devine found reasonable suspicion justified the stop/frisk and that evidence was lawfully obtained (but Court’s majority decision did not rest on that finding) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (describing exclusionary rule as judge-made deterrent remedy)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule applied to state criminal prosecutions)
- One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965) (addressing exclusion in a civil forfeiture of criminal character)
- United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976) (declining to extend the exclusionary rule to certain civil proceedings)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (holding exclusionary rule limited by cost–benefit deterrence analysis)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (cautioning against reflexive expansion of exclusion given social costs)
- State v. $217,590.00 in U.S. Currency, 18 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. 2000) (discussing exclusionary rule in Texas context)
- Fifty-Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars in U.S. Currency v. State, 730 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. 1987) (defining probable-cause standard in civil-forfeiture context)
- State v. Ninety Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars & No Cents in U.S. Currency, 390 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. 2013) (clarifying State’s burden on probable cause in forfeiture)
- Hardy v. State, 102 S.W.3d 123 (Tex. 2003) (noting unresolved question whether exclusionary rule applies in civil forfeiture)
- State v. Silver Chevrolet Pickup, 140 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. 2004) (confirming Chapter 59 in rem civil nature)