the State of Texas v. Ramon P. Astorga
08-20-00180-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 27, 2021Background:
- Ysleta del Sur Pueblo tribal officers stopped Ramon Astorga (a non‑Indian) after observing a turn‑signal violation on tribal land; passenger and vehicle then exited onto public road.
- Officers observed open alcohol containers and a glass pipe (suspected meth paraphernalia); officers shifted focus from traffic to a Peace Code paraphernalia investigation.
- Astorga was handcuffed, Mirandized, searched at the scene, placed in a patrol car, and transported ~½ mile to tribal police headquarters; initial on‑scene activity lasted ~39 minutes.
- At headquarters officers performed another safety search (negative); passenger later told officers Astorga concealed drugs in his groin; officers strip‑searched him and found methamphetamine.
- El Paso Police Department (EPPD) was not contacted until after the meth was discovered (call logged ~5:10 PM); EPPD later took possession and ultimately arrested Astorga that evening.
- Trial court suppressed the meth, concluding tribal officers unlawfully arrested/detained Astorga; appellate court affirmed because State failed to show the detention fit within the narrow policing authority recognized in U.S. v. Cooley.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Astorga) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tribal officers lawfully detained/ arrested Astorga under tribal, state, and federal law (Cooley policing authority) | Tribal officers could detain a non‑Indian suspected of state law violations on tribal land and hold him until EPPD arrived; detention was lawful under tribal codes, Public Law 280/Restoration Act, and Cooley | The detention exceeded tribal civil authority and Cooley’s narrow temporary detention; officers effectively arrested Astorga (handcuffs, Miranda, transport, booking) without authority | Held: Detention was unlawful. State failed to show Cooley applied—no contemporaneous contact with EPPD, hours elapsed, transport to HQ, and custodial indicia showed an arrest beyond tribal policing authority |
| Admissibility of evidence from stationhouse/strip search at tribal HQ | The searches were reasonable as part of normal booking/stationhouse procedures and for safety; alternatively justified as incident to arrest | The searches were fruits of an illegal arrest/detention and therefore inadmissible under the exclusionary rule | Held: Evidence suppressed. Because detention/arrest was unlawful, the contraband discovered at HQ is fruit of the poisonous tree and must be excluded (court did not need to reach independent reasonableness of strip search) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cooley, 141 S. Ct. 1638 (Sup. Ct. 2021) (tribal officers may detain a non‑Indian suspected of state or federal crimes on tribal land for the time reasonably necessary for non‑tribal officers to arrive; limited search ancillary to that detention)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1968) (standards for investigatory stops and limited detentions)
- Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (searches incident to lawful arrest and stationhouse/booking procedures)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (Sup. Ct. 1963) (exclusionary rule and "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine)
- Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (Sup. Ct. 1990) (recognition that tribal officers may detain and transport non‑Indians to proper authorities when criminal jurisdiction lies elsewhere)