Tucker, Thomas Paul
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 810
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- An anonymous tip claimed Tucker was selling marijuana from his house, prompting surveillance of his residence.
- After about 90 minutes, Tucker left in a white van; an officer stopped him for a turn-signal violation to develop probable cause for a residence search.
- During the stop Tucker kept his son in the van; officers eventually obtained consent to search Tucker’s van, leading to marijuana being found in a shoe.
- A consent to search Tucker’s residence was requested; Tucker allegedly consented only if his son could be returned home, and officers ultimately searched the home and found more marijuana.
- Motions to suppress the vehicle and residence seizures were denied; Tucker pled nolo contendere and was convicted of possession of marijuana within a drug-free zone.
- The Fourth Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s implied findings of voluntary consent; the Texas Supreme Court granted review to address voluntariness of residence consent and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Tucker's consent to search his residence voluntary? | Tucker contends the video shows coercion and prolonged detention, making consent involuntary. | State argues consent was voluntary, relying on totality of circumstances and timing after the stop. | Remand; court erred by not considering all evidence, including the video, in evaluating voluntariness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (voluntariness determined by totality of circumstances)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (credibility/deference issues in historical fact findings)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (almost total deference to trial court on historical facts; de novo review of law)
- Montanez v. State, 195 S.W.3d 101 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (deferential standard for videotape-based historical facts)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (deference to trial court’s factual findings; volatile when decisive visual evidence exists)
- Manzi v. State, 88 S.W.3d 240 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (deferential standard when based on affidavits)