Stephanie Ann Schenk v. State
05-14-00207-CR
Tex. App.Mar 16, 2015Background
- Late-night traffic stop after driver committed traffic violations; officer recognized driver from prior drug-related contacts. Three occupants: driver (Bertrand), owner (Chaudoir), and appellant Schenk (front passenger).
- Backup arrived; occupants were asked to exit, frisked, and seated on curb; officer questioned all three about drug use and prior arrests.
- Officer found a marijuana pipe with residue in the backseat after Chaudoir consented to a vehicle search; this gave probable cause to search the car.
- Officer asked Schenk about drugs in her purse; after equivocal statements from Schenk, she said “I don’t care” when asked if he could get the item; officer searched her purse and found a baggie that field-tested positive for methamphetamine.
- Schenk was arrested and later placed on one-year deferred adjudication after pleading guilty; she appealed the denial of her suppression motion raising four issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Miranda custodial question | Schenk: she was in custody when questioned and searched without Miranda warnings, so statements/search should be suppressed | State: stop was noncustodial; Miranda not required | Court: Not custodial; questions were general and not coercive — no Miranda violation |
| Scope/length of traffic stop | Schenk: detention was prolonged beyond purpose of stop after warrant checks, making seizure unreasonable | State: issue not preserved; detention was reasonable | Court: Waived at trial; no reversible error found |
| Consent to search purse | Schenk: consent was not clear, unequivocal, or voluntary | State: consent given; alternatively search lawful under automobile probable-cause doctrine | Court: Even if consent issue unresolved, search lawful under automobile probable cause (Wyoming v. Houghton) |
| Sufficiency of trial-court findings (Cullen) | Schenk: trial court failed to make required essential findings on suppression | State: court made sufficient findings; no omitted dispositive findings | Court: Trial court entered extensive findings; no Cullen violation alleged as to omitted essential findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (ordering passengers out of vehicle is permissible during traffic stop)
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (probable cause to search vehicle extends to passengers’ containers)
- State v. Ortiz, 382 S.W.3d 367 (custody/Miranda analysis at traffic stops; officer's overt accusatory questions can produce custody)
- State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696 (trial court must state essential findings on suppression upon request)
- Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680 (probable-cause standard for searches based on officer’s observations)
- Turrubiate v. State, 399 S.W.3d 147 (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)