State v. Roger Anthony Martinez
13-15-00069-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 1, 2015Background
- Roger Martinez was arrested outside the G&G Lounge in Victoria, TX on Jan. 5, 2014; officers conducted a warrantless search incident to that arrest and discovered drugs. Martinez moved to suppress; the trial court granted the motion and the State appealed.
- Officers Guerrero and Ramirez testified they observed signs of intoxication (odor of alcohol, glassy/red eyes, slurred speech, swayed stance) and that Martinez was aggressive and uncooperative; neither administered field sobriety tests or recorded the contact.
- Officer Patrick Quinn was the arresting officer but invoked his Fifth Amendment right and did not testify at the suppression hearing; the prosecutor did not elicit testimony establishing what Quinn personally observed or was told.
- The trial court found only Quinn made “personal” contact with Martinez and that the State failed to show what facts Quinn relied on to justify the arrest; the court concluded there was insufficient evidence that the arresting officer observed or was informed of conduct amounting to public intoxication.
- The court suppressed the evidence as the State did not meet its burden to show the warrantless search was reasonable (no proof of probable cause in Quinn’s knowledge or that viewing officers’ observations were relayed to him).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Martinez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate review should be de novo | No meaningful factual dispute; review de novo | Defer to trial court fact findings | Court applies bifurcated review: defer to trial court fact findings and review legal conclusions de novo; rejects State’s claim of wholly de novo review |
| Whether Guerrero and Ramirez effectively participated in the arrest (so their observations can supply probable cause) | Viewing officers’ testimony shows they participated and were aware of circumstances; arrest valid under article 14.01 | Viewing officers did not show they relayed observations to arresting officer Quinn; their testimony insufficient | Trial court’s finding that only Quinn made personal contact upheld; State failed to show viewing officers effectively participated |
| Whether there was probable cause for arrest for public intoxication | Officers’ observations (odor, slurred speech, glassy eyes, unsteady) supported probable cause | No evidence Quinn observed or was informed of those facts; State didn’t meet its burden | Probable cause not established as to Quinn’s knowledge; warrantless search incident to arrest unreasonable |
| Whether Quinn’s refusal to testify violated confrontation/compulsory process rights (raised but not decided) | Arguments asserted | Martinez’s position implicit in seeking suppression | Court did not reach these issues after resolving probable-cause/participation questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (Fourth Amendment probable-cause standard)
- Willis v. State, 669 S.W.2d 728 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (viewing officer may validate arrest by relaying first-hand observations)
- Astran v. State, 799 S.W.2d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (viewing officer who participates and communicates observations can validate arrest)
- Amador v. State, 275 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (probable-cause standard for warrantless arrest)
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (burden-shifting when defendant shows warrantless search)
- Baird v. State, 398 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Coleman v. State, 359 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. Crim. App.) (arrest valid where non-arresting officer relayed knowledge to arresting officer)