Tatiana Bakhoum v. the State of Texas, 14-19-00762-CR

Appellant Tatiana Bakhoum was arrested by Officer Neimeyer and placed in handcuffs; at trial Neimeyer testified he did not believe he had probable cause to arrest her.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion (affirmed as modified) with a divided panel; Justice Hassan filed a dissent.
The dissent treats the officer’s testimony as a judicial admission that he lacked probable cause at the moment of arrest and argues that admission withdraws the fact from dispute.
The majority applied the objective probable-cause test and reviewed the totality of the circumstances known to the officer to conclude probable cause existed (effectively construing post‑hoc support for the arrest).
The dissent contends the majority improperly ignores the officer’s subjective admission and constructs after‑the‑fact probable cause, which it argues undermines Fourth Amendment protections against seizures based on inarticulate hunches.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an arresting officer’s courtroom testimony that he did not believe he had probable cause is a binding judicial admission that negates probable cause	Bakhoum: Officer’s admission is a judicial admission and removes probable cause from issue, requiring suppression/reversal	State/Majority: Court must apply the objective probable‑cause test and may evaluate the totality of circumstances irrespective of officer’s subjective belief	Dissent: Would treat the admission as binding and reverse; Majority: applied objective test and affirmed as modified
Whether courts may ignore an officer’s subjective belief and reconstruct probable cause from facts known at the time (post‑hoc justification)	Bakhoum: Post‑hoc construction cannot override a controlling judicial admission that there was no probable cause	State/Majority: Probable cause is an objective inquiry; court may assess facts known at the moment and conclude probable cause existed despite subjective testimony	Dissent: Rejects post‑hoc construction when officer admits lack of probable cause; Majority permits objective, totality‑of‑circumstances review

Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964) (subjective good faith alone does not validate warrantless arrests)
Amador v. State, 275 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (probable‑cause test is objective and considers totality of circumstances)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (Fourth Amendment prohibits seizures based on inarticulate hunches)
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (probable cause requires facts that would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe an offense occurred)
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (standard for objective determination of reasonable belief at moment of seizure)
Bryant v. State, 187 S.W.3d 397 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (judicial admissions are formal concessions that withdraw facts from issue)