State v. Ortiz
346 S.W.3d 127
Tex. App.2011Background
- Ortiz was stopped for speeding on May 20, 2009 on U.S. Highway 87 south of Lubbock; video-audio of the stop was admitted at suppression hearing.
- Ortiz and his wife spoke Spanish; they understood English, and Ortiz had a prior cocaine arrest and probation in Spearman.
- A female officer pat-searched Ortiz's wife, found a substance on her leg, and arrested her; Ortiz was handcuffed for safety as officers investigated.
- Ortiz made two statements during the stop: 'coca'/'cocaina' identifying cocaine, and 'un kilo' identifying quantity, before any Miranda warnings were given.
- Ortiz was indicted for possession with intent to deliver of 400 grams or more of cocaine; the trial court granted part of the suppression motion, suppressing the two statements.
- The State appeals the suppression ruling, challenging whether the statements were admissible under Miranda, Article 38.22, or res gestae
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Ortiz in custody for Miranda purposes when he made the first statement? | Ortiz not in custody at first statement | Ortiz was in custody after handcuffing; custodial interrogation | Ortiz was in custody when he made the first statement; statements suppressed |
| Are the statements admissible under Article 38.22 §3(c) or §5 (res gestae)? | Statements fall under Article 38.22 §3(c) or res gestae | Even if custodial, statements are not admissible under §3(c) and not admissible as res gestae | Statements are not admissible under §3(c) and not admissible as res gestae; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (traffic stop custody standard; temporary detention not custody unless long-term)
- Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (custody determination based on objective circumstances)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) (Miranda warnings required before interrogation)
- Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (Miranda custody analysis; factors for reasonable belief of arrest)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011) (age as factor in custody analysis; objective test)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (definition of interrogation; reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
- Sheppard v. State, 271 S.W.3d 281 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (handcuffing does not automatically create arrest for Fourth Amendment; custody implications under Miranda)
- Pilcher v. Estelle, 528 F.2d 623 (5th Cir.1976) (res gestae; Miranda protections not subordinate to res gestae)