Wexler, Suzanne Elizabeth, PD-0241-20

Police surveilled 318 Avenue A for drug activity, obtained a search warrant after multiple arrests for methamphetamine, and executed the warrant with uniformed officers, narcotics K‑9s, and a 20–25 officer HROU (SWAT‑like) unit.
HROU announced the search over an armored‑vehicle loudspeaker, directed occupants to exit; Wexler exited and was placed in the back of a patrol car during a protective sweep.
While the house had not yet been searched, narcotics detective Jerome Hill (no warnings given) asked Wexler where the narcotics were; she replied they were in her bedroom dresser drawer.
Officers then searched, found methamphetamine and other drug paraphernalia, and Hill arrested Wexler for possession with intent to distribute.
At trial Wexler objected that her statement was the product of custodial interrogation and required Miranda/Article 38.22 warnings; the trial court admitted the statement and she was convicted and sentenced to 25 years.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding Wexler was temporarily detained—not in custody—when she spoke; the Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wexler)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Wexler was in custody for Miranda/Art. 38.22 purposes when questioned in patrol car	Placement in patrol car amid large, armed police show amounted to custody requiring warnings	Detention was temporary and investigatory; no Miranda warnings required because she was not in custody	Court held Wexler failed to prove custodial interrogation; statement admissible
Whether objective circumstances known to Wexler supported a reasonable person believing she was under arrest	The visible show of force and organized sweep would have made a reasonable person feel restrained to arrest level	Record lacks evidence Wexler perceived the full show of force; questioning was brief and public, like a traffic stop	Court held the record did not establish that Wexler knew or experienced circumstances making the detention the functional equivalent of arrest
Burden of proof on custody claim	Wexler must establish her statement was product of custodial interrogation	State argues burden not met; trial court’s ruling supported by record	Court reiterated defendant bears initial burden and Wexler failed to meet it
Proper standard of review for custody determination	N/A (dispute over lower court focus)	Trial court factual findings get deference; ultimate custody legal question reviewed de novo	Court applied bifurcated review, deferred to trial court’s factual inferences and affirmed admission

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing warnings required for custodial interrogation)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (temporary detentions like traffic stops generally not custodial for Miranda)
Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (custody test: objective inquiry whether reasonable person would feel free to leave)
Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (four situations that may constitute custody)
Herrera v. State, 241 S.W.3d 520 (custody burden and objective‑circumstances analysis)
State v. Ortiz, 382 S.W.3d 367 (illustrative custody finding where suspect knew officers had found contraband)