State v. Shirley Copeland
380 S.W.3d 214
Tex. App.2012Background
- Deputy Garza observed activity at a house on Coleto Drive in Victoria County and stopped a vehicle for traffic violations (failure to signal, failure to stop).
- Driver Danish claimed ownership; Copeland, a passenger, claimed to be Danish’s common-law wife; she refused consent to search the vehicle.
- Deputy Garza searched the vehicle with Danish’s consent, finding two Tramadol pills; Copeland was arrested for possession of a dangerous drug.
- The trial court found Copeland had possessory interest in the vehicle as part of a common-law marriage and that she had equal authority to consent or refuse to search.
- The trial court also found there was no probable cause to search without consent and that Copeland’s refusal to consent negated Danish’s consent under Randolph/Bassano framework.
- On appeal, the State challenged the common-law marriage finding, Copeland’s standing, and the validity of consent, and the court affirmed the suppression order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of common-law marriage between Copeland and Danish | State contends no common-law marriage supported. | Copeland asserts common-law marriage evidenced by mutual intent and community property interests. | Common-law marriage supported; trial court reasonable in relying on deputy testimony. |
| Copeland’s standing to challenge the search | State argues passenger lacks privacy interest. | Copeland shows possessory interest via common-law marriage to owner. | Copeland has standing; standing affirmed due to common-law marriage finding. |
| Validity of consent to search (Randolph/third-party consent in vehicle context) | State argues Copeland’s refusal should not negate owner’s consent. | Copeland’s express refusal negates consent under Randolph/Bassano. | Copeland’s refusal negates the owner’s consent; search invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third-party consent valid with mutual use/control over property)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (co-tenant cannot be overridden by others’ consent when present and objecting)
- State v. Bassano, 827 S.W.2d 557 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992) (joint control/consent scenarios in vehicles; cited for equal authority concept)
- Welch v. State, 93 S.W.3d 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (applies Matlock to vehicle searches; third-party consent in vehicle context)
- Houston v. State, 286 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009) (Randolph analysis extended to vehicle context in some circumstances)
- Harris v. United States, 526 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2008) (third-party consent and common authority considerations)