State v. Rhonda Rombs
13-14-00200-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 10, 2015Background
- On July 7, 2012 Officer Chance Durbin observed Rhonda Rombs crying and apparently intoxicated while sitting outside a convenience store with another person and approached to check on their welfare.
- A purse sat next to Rombs; Durbin asked for permission to look in the purse and Rombs replied, “Go ahead. I don’t mind.”
- Durbin searched the purse, found a closed women’s wallet inside it, opened the wallet, and discovered two and a half white pills.
- Rombs moved to suppress the pills; the trial court granted the motion and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- The State appealed, arguing the trial court erred because Durbin had consent to search the purse and that consent objectively included the wallet found inside.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rombs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to search a purse includes consent to search a closed wallet inside it | Consent to search the purse was affirmative and unrestricted; a reasonable person would expect the search to include containers found within the purse | Implicit: the wallet was a separate, closed container and required separate consent (trial court accepted this) | Trial court granted the motion to suppress (officer lacked consent to search the wallet) |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of consent measured by objective reasonableness; general consent may include containers)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings: defer to trial court fact findings, review legal application de novo)
- United States v. Crain, 33 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 1994) (consent to search vehicle can extend to unlocked containers absent limitation)
- United States v. Mendoza–Gonzalez, 318 F.3d 663 (5th Cir. 2003) (open-ended consent implies no expectation that search will be limited)
- United States v. Battista, 876 F.2d 201 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (consent to search luggage includes consent to search items/containers within; courts resist requiring repeated consent for each container)