Armendariz v. State

ap- the court of judgment of jury. “A of another.9 causes death reversed, reckless, judgment is recklessly, respect or is with peals acts is his when he sentence are affirmed. to ... the result of conduct conviction and consciously a sub- disregards of but aware unjustifiable ... risk that

stantial case, ap- will occur.”10 result although remem- testified that he pellant up leading bered the events shoot- no suddenly out” and had ing, he “blacked actually the victim. shooting recollection of Therefore, admission, by his own he was ARMENDARIZ, Appellant, Jose Franco having the victim’s not aware of caused shooting. The death at the time of the argues that there is no evidence State Texas. The STATE of rationally permit jury a find would No. 0070-02. gun, the firing timе at the of, consciously but appellant was aware Texas, Appeals of Criminal Court unjustifiable disregarded, substantial En banc. die risk that the victim would result Dec. recog- agree. We also conduct.

nize, out, that it is points State a person how

difficult understand risk which he “consciously disregard” a is unaware. appeals’

The court of reliance conduct involving cited cases reckless do misplaced simply because those cases complete not involve defendants who were ly incognizant of what at the time occurred charged in the conduct. engaged

Here, the appellant’s the evidence of with the victim and his state

struggle ments, “It “I not was an accident” and did to,”

mean are to the defensive relevant self-defense, but issuеs accident finding not such evidence does allow a given appellant’s self-de recklessness mental state when the victim scribed inability Evidence of defendant’s killed. vic causing death of the remember to a not entitle the defendant tim does on the lesser-included offense charge manslaughter, the trial court did submitting charge by not such err Id., 6.03(c). § 19.04. Penal Tex. Hirsch, Odessa,

H. Thomas for Appel- lant. Marshall,

Betty Assistant State Attor- ney, Paul, Attorney, ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍Matthew State’s Aus- tin, for State.

OPINION

HOLCOMB, J., opinion delivered Court, KELLER, J., in which P. PRICE, WOMACK, KEASLER, HERVEY, COCHRAN, JJ., joined. The court appeals held that the trial court in denying appellant’s erred motion to suppress. v. Armendariz 2001). (Tex.App.-El S.W.3d Paso We reverse.

The Relevant Facts An grand jury Ector County indict ed on one count of possession substance, namely controlled сocaine. Safety See Tex. Health & 481.115(d). Appellant filed later a mo tion to suppress question, the cocaine in evidentiary and the trial court held an on hearing the motion. The evidence ad duced at hearing, light viewed in the most trial favorable court’s later ruling,1 following: established the 10, 1999, On June the Odessa Police Department anonymous tip received an that appellant transport would soon quantity of cocaine from his residence Bodega” Witcher Street “La con- appellate reviewing Ross, 1. An ruling. court trial court’s trial court's State ruling suppress on a motion to must view the (Tex.Crim.App.2000). light evidence in most favorable few Paquette arrived at scene 42nd Both caine. venieneе store on West Street. and the convenience later. appellant’s residence minutes the Odessa store located outside sup- of the evidence at the At the close County. but Ector Odessa limits inside ar- hearing, appellant made two pression Officer Jordan Medrano asked Ec- Police why guments as to the cocaine County Deputy Paquette tor Keith Sheriff argument, His first suppressed. should be investigation appellant, to assist in the Amendment to grounded in the Fourth agreed do Medrano Paquette to so. Constitution, was that States United in civilian Paquette, both undercover of an unreasonable the fruit cocaine was vehicles, in unmarked located clothes and without and search conducted seizure residence, began and Medrano appellant’s argument, His second probable cause.2 remained in Paquette of it. surveillance 14.03(d) of the Texas in Article grounded area, vehicle, ready in his unmarked to Procedure,3 of Criminal Code police offi- assist. Several other Odessa illegal the fruit of an traffic cocaine was cers, vehicles, police in marked were also police stop carried out outside the Odessa area, ready All of these assist. jurisdiction. officers’ peace officers maintained continuous radio approximately p.m., rejected appel- At Me- both of contact. 4:30 The trial court away from appellant drano observеd drive denied his motion arguments lant’s green automo- his residence Lincoln trial specifically, suppress. More bile. Medrano radioed this information to stop and search of court concluded that in the area and to police both were lawful under appellant’s vehicle later, Paquette. Paquette spotted Moments be- and state law the Fourth Amendment vehicle, briefly, appellant’s followed it (1) stop, at the time of the cause a traffic of- appellant observed commit probable cause police officers Odessa fense, namely on the passing shoulder. appellant was then commit- to believe that and, Paquette Since possession undercover — ting felоny offense of therefore, position not in a to initiate a (2) cocaine, appel- obtained the officers stop traffic radioed his (3) search, —he the offi- lant’s consent to observations to the Odessa sher- participation [the] “had the cers stop the area and instructed them to limits.” deputy iffs outside appellant’s vehicle. Two of the Odessa trial, Later, trial court after a bench appellant’s stopped officers then ve- his appellant guilty and assessed found County a point hicle at inside Ector but imprisonment years at for five punishment They asked outside the Odessa limits. in the amount of and restitution $140. his vehi- appellant’s for consent search appeal, appellаnt reiterated cle, On direct voluntarily. gave and he that consent trial arguments he made the two appellant’s The then searched ve- ac- Eighth Appeals Court of and found two bundles of co- court. hicle small jurisdic- prohibition officer who un- The Fourth Amendment’s arrest, warrant, without tion searches seizures was made reasonable who commits an offense within officer's state officials the Due Process view, felony, presence is a or if offense Clause of the Amendment. Fourteenth Wolf 9, Penal Code violation of Title Colorado, 25, 27-28, 338 U.S. 69 S.Ct. conduct], disorderly [prohibiting a breach (1949). 93 L.Ed. 1782 peace, Section of the 49.02, offense under [prohibiting public intox- Penal 14.03(d) part: provides, 3. Article in relevant ication]. bоth of cepted appellant’s arguments, officers, re- mation the Odessa court, judgment versed the of the trial gave that information those officers proba- remanded the for case further proceed- ble cause stop appellant’s vehicle.4 ings. Armendariz v. Once stopped appellant’s the officers vehi- 578. We later petition the State’s cle, they asked for and received his volun- discretionary review to determine tary consent to search. Since the search of appeals whether the court erred. See legitimate stop followed traffic and was 66.8(b) (c). Tex.R.App. Proc. & consent, out appellant’s carried with it was reasonable Fourth under the Amendment.

Anаlysis Bustamonte, See Schneckloth v. 412 U.S. of appeals obligated court was 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d 854 uphold ruling the trial court’s appel- (1973). suppress ruling lant’s motion to if that was We turn next to appellant’s state supported by record and was correct law claim. we previously, As noted appel any theory under of law argued lant in the trial court that Ross, case. State cocaine should be Arti suppressed, under (Tex.Crim.App.2000). That rule holds true 14.03(d), cle illegal as the fruit of an traffic if gave even the trial court the wrong stop carried out police Odessa ruling. reason for its Romero v. geographic jurisdiction. officers’ Given S.W.2d 543 ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍(Tex.Crim.App.1990). however, evidence, the record the trial task, then, Our is to determine whether reasonably court could have concluded that reasonably the trial court could have de- stop traffic did not violate law. state appellant’s nied suppress given motion to is, That the trial court could have reason given the record evidence and applica- ably stop concluded that the traffic was ble federal and state law. 14.01(b)5 lawful under interpret Article as turn appellant’s first ed this Court in Astran v. Fourth Amendment claim. As we noted 761 (Tex.Crim.App.1990).

previously, appellant argued in the trial Astran, pattern we faced a fact analo- court that the cocaine found his vehicle gous instant one: should suppressed, under the Fourth officers, Amendment, Dallas as fruit an uniformed and under- unreason cover, working able a combined ef- seizure search conducted without probable fort drug cause. Given to arrest offenders on the the record evi date dence, however, the trial court could have arrest. Officer [Romaldo Astran’s] reasonably concluded the seizure Wilson was of the part team and was of appellant’s search working buys vehicle did not violate making undercover street Fourth Amendment. Deputy illegal drugs. bought twenty Once Wilson Sheriff Paquette appellant observed com dollars’ worth of heroin from [Astran] offense, mit a traffic he radioed away that infor- and drove of the from scene Amendment, Ohio, 89, 91, probable 4. Under the Fourth seized. Beck v. 379 U.S. cause to conduct a (1964). warrantless seizure exists S.Ct. 13 L.Ed.2d 142 have, when at the moment sei- of the zure, knowledge of facts and circumstances 14.01(b) provides "[a] Article of- grounded reasonably trustworthy informa- ficer an arrest offender without a war- tion sufficient in themselves to warrant a any pres- rant for offense committed by prudent person belief offense has ence or within his view.” being been or person committed con- in continuous radio quette remained immediately uni- He radioed sale. officers, and the arrest. Odessa formed Officer Black to make tact with the of the arrest gave description a detailed at the scene Wilson that he arrived [Astran], height, appellant’s which included vehicle just [his] minutes after a few specifically facts, wеight, and location. Wilson the trial those stopped. was Given wearing Black that [Astran] told reasonably concluded court could have spelled the words “Jesus tee-shirt which awareness participation Paquette’s appellant in two Black found Christ.” arrest appellant’s circumstances of him. minutes and arrested Wilson just much a participant him made away during blocks ar- parked two him- appellant if had seized he radio contact with rest maintained analysis, Astran light of such an self. throughout sighting Black ar- jurisdiction of the Odessa of the ar- thirty rest. Within minutes irrelevant. police officers was identified rest Wilson ruling denying appel- The trial court’s sold the station as the who by suppress supported was lant’s motion to arrest, During the Black found a drugs. theory a the record and was correct under capsules matchbox five of small with Therefore, to the case. of law [As- heroin on which [Astran’s] obligated up- to of appeals the court suppressed [as to have the sought tran] in ruling court’s and erred the trial hold illegal fruit of an arrest and search]. to do failing so. Id, facts, held that On those we of court of judgment the reverse the Astran’s arrest was lawful under Article of judgment the appeals affirm the 14.01(b) in participation because “Wilson’s court. trial of of and awareness the circumstances the just much participant arrest made him as a WOMACK, J., concurring

in if he also filed a arrest as had seized [Astran’s] (internal himself.” Id. at 764 opinion. [Astran] omitted). words, In quotation marks MEYERS, J., dissenting opinion, filed a arrest was lawful under Article

Astran’s JOHNSON, J., joined. in which 14.01(b) himself, effect, because Wilson arrested Astran. J., WOMACK, concurring filed a 14.01(b), interpreted Article

Given opinion. Astran, given the record evidence opinion, I join I the Court’s wish While case, the trial could have court here significant question out more point reasonably that ar- appellant’s concluded review, but which the which we himself, Paquette because rest was lawful not reach: the au- opinion Court’s does effect, Paquette appellant arrested to ar- thority municipal police clearly acting within his outside their cities. rest jurisdiction, County. Ector The which was the question This court confronted Paquette that ob- record evidence shows Angel v. officers of 1987 in State.1 Police commit a traffic offense served stopped Angel City Tomball radioed that infor- Paquette and that then They city August limits on officers and mation the Odessa his that warrants for arrest vehicle. learned stop appellant’s them to instructed saw evidence outstanding, and one of them also shows that Pa- The record evidence 1987). (Tex.Cr.App. think Angel’s thority jurisdiction by that made him vehicle as are said wired,” they' had been “hot arrested turn, so city title vested in marshals.”6 felony theft, him. At trial his for he ob- marshal, city Article 999 said “In jected ground evidence on prevention and suppression crime illegally by it was seized who have, offenders, pos and arrest he shall stop no оr arrest him “outside like power, sess execute jurisdiction authority.”2 trial The jurisdiction opinion The sheriff.”7 objection. court court overruled noted that a “a sheriff was conservator of rejected argument' af- appeals 2.17, - county in his Art. firmed judgment of conviction. (1977). A jurisdiction, V.A.C.C.P. sheriffs an opinion Judge

In this court Camp- therefore, county-wide. is Because judgment bell announced the that affirmed jurisdiction arresting of officer’s judgments of the courts After below. parallels jurisdiction, fenders sheriffs setting procedural out the facts and the 999, supra, appears see Arts. it 998 & II, history in the opinion Parts ad- city police county officer’s III, Part questions. dressed two opinion wide.” The arti held those opinion held that the State had “wаived” “grant city cles marshals ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍and right challenge standing Angel’s county-wide jurisdiction complain raising the seizures prior offenders.”9 It also said that deci appeals.3 court That court, sions of the which were to the con of part opinion joined by the was one trary, were overruled.10 judge,4 judge concurring with third in the result.5 Angel I do not believe that can relied be question on to decide of the IV, Judge Campbell’s In Part opinion of officers to arrest outside their addressed the of the Tomball today. thing, Camp- Judge cities For one arrest outside limits. opinion on bell’s opinion looked to Articles 998 and 999 joined by any other member of the court. of Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes Annotat judge simply “con- One was recorded ed. Articlе said or town in curs result.”11 The other three mem- in any city “incorporated council or town joined bers of the court who the judgment (not provisions under the of this title” oth III of affirmance dissented from Part pro in opinion) may erwise identified officers, Judge opinion, said, and Campbell’s “Oth- vide for the appointment erwise, powers, rights, [they] who “shall have like au concur in the result.”12 Id., Id., (emphasis original). at 2. 728-29. 8. at 735 in Id., at 730. 3. Id., 9. at 736. J., id., joins part III

4. See at 736 in ("Duncan, Ibid. id., Miller, opinion (dissenting at See J., S.W.2d, Angel, 11. See at 736 (“White, ("I J.) concur in result reached as to result”). concurs in standing issue (concurring Angel, 740 S.W.2d at Id., original). (emphasis in n. 13 McCormick, J., dissenting opinion Ibid, Onion, J., Davis, J.). (emphasis original). joined by in P the control- rectly, and amendment judges Four dissented.13 persua- in has made its ling stаtutes Plurality from this court were opinions authority even less. sive 1997,14 opin- before lead common did not inform the reader whether ions in opinion Judge Campbell based his fact, opinions they of the court. language in two articles Angel on through leaf might reader have to ap- statutes. The basic flaw civil opinions, looking for the various several that, dissenting opinion as a proach is deci- places judges’ which individual out, into account it did not take pointed might recorded. Readers sions be applied to kind those statutes whether opinion notice that a publishers might lead question.19 court, an opinion was not but case, Angel exam- might not. In the municipal species There three are syllabus ple, thе and headnotes of Texas, categorized accord- corporations report did not Publishing Company’s West gener- their creation: ing to the manner of lead that of opinion mention (of are there three al-law cities which concurring Judge Campbell judge with one cities, B, C), home-rule types A,— III, judges concurring four as to Part by special legislation.20 cities chartered result to Part IV.15 grant their au- statutes that The various before, plurality opin- As we have said in the Local Gov- thorities were codified (or no) precedential have even ions limited in 1987.21 ernment Code opinion value.16 When announced An- Tomball officers arrested When the judgment joined of the court was not 998 and 999 of Ver- gel Articles cоurt, any other member of the we (the specific non’s Statutes statutes Civil reasoning been free to reexamine its in An- Judge Campbell’s opinion which say regarded it can as cor- whether relied) were in Title gel rect.17 review to do in this so of this think The “Articles Judge the Civil Statutes. Campbell’s case.18 general chapter application did cor- have opinion not address the statutes ("Teague, L, S.W.2d, currently pending this Court.” Angel, 13. See 740 at 736 which is J., 103, joins part III and 2 Yeager dissents. 105 n. v. 104 S.W.3d Duncan, IV”), part opinion (dissenting dissents 739 (Tex.Cr.App.2003). Clinton, J.), J., joined by Teague, (opin- Miller, J., concurring ion of in result reached S.W.2d, J., (Clinton, Angel, 740 19. See issue, dissenting concerning standing dissenting). jurisdiction holding). to the 20. David B. Brooks, 22 Texas Practice —Munici- 14. which this court ordered its Of cases in § Seе 3.03 1996, (2d ed.1999). pal opinions published in State Fiscal Year Law & Practice per an cent were decided without Code, ch. 5: nineteen Tex. Local Gov’t opinion of court. 1997 the number Since "Subchapter Municipalities Types A. per less than one cent. has been "Section Municipality. Type "5.001. A General-Law S.W.2d, Angel, 15. at 727. See Municipality. Type B "5.002. General-Law 221, Cooper E.g., 16. v. 67 S.W.3d Municipality. Type B General-Law "5.003. (Tex.Cr.App.2002). Municipality. "5.004. Home-Rule ” Municipality. Special-Law "5.005. Anderer, parte 402- 17. See Ex (Tex.Cr.App.2001). R.S., 21, 1987, May Leg., ch. Act 70th 1,§ Gen. Laws 1987 Tex. viability Angel square- oí "The continued State, 02-0070, ly presented in Armendariz law cities.”22 Articles and 999 did not that it necessary may considers define apply to home-rule or special-law munici- duties officers.29 palities. Judge Campbell’s opinion Insofar as said that Articles 998 and 999 could au- authorized, by Home-rule cities were any thorize municipality officers kind of provide article in po- “To cities, to arrest limits of their it departments.”23 lice fire was simply incorrect. courts of ap- Some Home-rule cities have the mere statuto- peals recognized holding ry authority “provide for a police opinion applied cannot be to officers of department.”24 Whatever extraterrito- all types of cities.30 granted rial be may A why second reason Angel cannot be [home-rule-city] pursuant to a today is that authoritative Articles 998 and [home-rule-city] cannot, charter changed. They 999 have repealed, were course, be in general conflict with the 1, 1987,31 September replaced effective laws of the state which conclude that a by sections 341.001 and 341.021 of the [home-rule-city] policeman, peace as a Local Government Code. Those sections officer, duty preserve has the “to apply only force peace jurisdiction.”25 within his There marshal, respectively, Type general- of a A comparable has never been a statute municipality.32 law those sections A general-law to a Type give amended those municipalities that gives officers the powers cities the same county same wide as sheriffs.26 gives of Criminal Procedure It mаy added that a home-rule munici- peace act amending officers. said: pality may police also certain areas owned 341.001(e), Section Local Government by and located municipality.27 outside the Code, is amended to read as follows: B general-law a Type municipality, the (e) officer has: marshal has the power same within the (1) duties, that a constable has within a powers, rights, ju- precinct.28 In a municipality, C imposed risdiction to or on a body governing appoint the Code Criminal officer O’Quinn, Status, Id., 341.022(a). History, Trueman Cities, Villages, Function Towns and in 2A Vernon’s Annotated Revised Civil Statutes of Id.,% 341.002. xiii, (1963). the State of Texas xxdc Yeager See n. 3 23. Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes art. 2000), (Tex.Ct.App.-Waco reversed other 1175(27) (1963). grounds, (Tex.Cr.App.2003); 104 S.W.3d 103. (Tex.App.- Reichaert v. 830 S.W.2d 348 § Gov’t [Tex. Local 341.003. Code] ref’d). pet. San Antonio [Tex.Code Crim. Proc. 2.13. art.] 21, 1987, 49(1), May § 31. Act of 1987 Tex. Brooks, 26. David B. Practice-Munici- Texas ("The following Gen. laws Laws at 1306 are pal (2d ed.1999) (foot- § Law & Practice 14.09 acts, (1) repealed: following and articles renumbered). original, notes in compiled as Vernon’s in Texas Civil Statutes: ...”). ... 998 ... 999 ("parks § 27. Tex. Local Gov’t 341.903 ..., grounds, contiguous and lakes and land Brooks, boulevards”). supra speedways and note 14.09 in Arti- who were listed peace A The officers a marshal of [of Procedure 2.12(1) (4) and their cle were sheriffs general-law municipality]; and — deputies, deputy and consta- constables (2) pre- powers other and duties in- bles, of an marshals or officers body.33 governing scribed villagе, town corporated or or 341.021(e), Local Government Section Department of and officers of the rangers Code, is as follows: amended read was amended Safety. (g) Public Subsection (e) power The has the same marshal (the officers to add a fifth class of jurisdiction peace as a under officer attorneys’, investigators of the district Procedure [the the Code Criminal attorneys’, county at- district criminal warrants, county to execute sheriff] offices) change and to refer- torneys’ crime, ar- prevent suppress Act to “Subtitle [etc.]” from “Uniform ence The has rest offenders. marshal other Other, C, 7, Transportation Title Code.”36 law, powers, inconsistent with state made. amendments been minor body gоverning confers ordi- (as whole, as a the 1995 act nance.34 Taken 1999) law in four affected the amended section, The act one which (1) ways. It five gave peace classes 14.03 of (g) added subsection article authority to arrest outside their Code of Criminal Procedure: offenses, jurisdictions for other than cer- (g) peace A officer who is listed Sub- offenses, that committed tain traffic were (1), (2), (3), 2.12, (4), division or Article is (2) or view. presence within the officer’s licensed under Government all By negative implication, it denied to Code, ju- is outside the officer’s peace other classes risdiction arrest without a warrant jurisdictions for of- arrest outside their a person any who commits offense with- committed within the offi- fеnses view, presence except the officer’s (3) gave only It presence or view. cer’s is an officer who offi- Department rangers and officers jurisdiction may person cer’s Safety authority arrest for cer- Public Regulat- violation of the Uniform Act if they tain traffic were outside offenses (Article 67091d, Traffic on ing Highways (4) jurisdiction. gave It the officer’s Statutes) if Vernon’s Texas Civil general-law municipali- A officers Class (4), the officer is listed Subdivision as power ties the same 2.12. peace making Article officer generally given are under arrest under this subsection shall Code Criminal Procedure. practicable making after ar- soon statute, as it been amend- notify a law has agency rest enforcement When еd, together provi- considered with having where the arrest was Code, to- of the Local Government agency made. law enforcement sions Angel, day’s custody shall then take answer to appeal in this of which we committing per- the offense and take the compliance granted that have not ad- magistrate a in review but we son before dressed, a peace that with Article 14.06.35 would seem be 4213, 1995, Id., 1, 16, R.S., 4213. Leg., § Tex. Gen. Laws June 74th ch. 1995 Act of 2, 4213, 829, § Tex. Gen. Laws 1999, R.S., 24, Leg., May ch. 36. Act of 76th 686, 3, 4213, 210, 2, Id., § Tex. Gen. 686-87. Gen. Laws 1995 Tex. Laws officer C, does not have authority Chapter to arrest Title if the offense is com- (1) jurisdiction in the officer’s unless presence mitted officer’s or view. the offense is committed ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍within offi- courts appeals recognized Some have view, (2) presence cer’s or the offense that have amendments made ob is under some statute other than Trans- holding Judge Campbell’s solete the in (3) portation C, Chapter Code Title opinion Angel.37 the officer is licensed under Government course, proper Of consideration of (4) Code the officer is: analysis the statutes does not end the (a) sheriff, a a or deputy, or sheriffs a every example, case. For our decisions licence; deputy reserve with a certain recognized a of “hot pursuit” doctrine (b) constable, constable, a or a deputy begins pursue that allows officer who

or a deputy with li- reserve a certain a suspect boundary within the of a munici- cense; pality to continue pursuit effect an (c) boundary.38 a or marshal officer an in- arrest outside town, corporated city, or village, or a The Court has not reached this issue in license, reserve officer with a certain disposed appeal this case because it and the is: holding made, that the (1) Type general-law city, a effect, by deputy county- who had sheriff authority, (2) and that the trial court wide did general-law B Type city, in admitting not err the evidence that was (3) (unless general C law join obtained from the arrest. I body the governing has defined the opinion. Court’s so as duty officer’s not to include that authority), MEYERS, J., dissenting opinion, filed a (4) city, a home-rule or JOHNSON, J., joined. which (5) (unless a special-law city the stat- disagree majority’s with the failure to charter, city, ute that created- the the issue of home address whether rule or governing body acting under county-wide jurisdic police officers have charter, statute has defined appeal, tion. At trial and oh the State duty so as not include officer’s argued probable cause existed authority); tip because the informant’s and because (d) Depart- a ranger or officer of the Deputy Paquette’s involvement Safety; ment of Public or arrest, argue but did not (e) an of a investigator office juris in this case their were within county attorney, a district attorney, appellant. diction stopped Only when attorney. criminal district discretionary on for petition review this A ranger Department Prosecuting Attorney or officer of Court does the State Safety city police Public has additional contend the Odessa offi officers, cers, jurisdiction municipal county arrest outside the officer’s Transportation an offense under wide under our decision An Contra, 8). 37. See Gerron v. Brother v. 2001), (Tex.App.-Waco 2002). vacated (Tex.App.-Fort 385 n. 7 Worth grounds, (Tex.Cr.App.2003); 97 S.W.3d 597 162, State, (Tex.App.- Hoitt S.W.3d v. 28 165 See, State, e.g., Yeager v. 104 S.W.3d 103 dism’d; 2000), pet. v. Texarkana Preston (Tex.Cr.App.2003). State, 24, (Tex.App.-Tyler 26 983 S.W.2d

411 (Tex.Crim. city asserting correct Odessa 740 S.W.2d 727 gel jurisdic- this majority neglects officers were within their App.1987). appellant for they stopped for ground review. tion when However, 998 offense. Articles traffic Angel, In this Court considered whether were the Local Government Code 999 of municipal police officers acting recodified, 1987, part, repealed a traffic city may limits arrest someone for Local Gov- 341.001 of the current section Angel, without a warrant. violation applicable That section is ernment Code.3 examined the S.W.2d We Type municipalities. A only general-law to of the of Criminal under Article 14.01 Code Code, § 341.001. Tex. Loc. See 6701(d) Procedure, Gov’t and former Article Traffic on Regulating the Uniform Act 1995, 341 of the Local Gov- chapter (now Tex. TRánsp. Highways1 Code amended, the sec- ernment Code was 543.001).2 although § noted that We defining police officers powers tion grant together two statutes seemed changed. A Type municipalities was from juris peace geographic officers unlimited officers the grants The section now those for making arrests diction warrantless duties, jurisdic- “powers, rights, same presence committed their offenses peace granted imposed to or tion view, authority act not neces may “the Proce- by of Criminal officer the Code of that sarily geographic scope define the Loc. dure.” Code, Tex. Gov’t if authority. scope, That ab geographic 341.001(e)(1). However, § from granting sent the statute are jurisdictional limits for officers act, must find its source in some other Proce- of Criminal not defined the Code by ... statute or be controlled common dure, any nor in other statute. 732, Angel, citing law.” 740 S.W.2d at city police held that When Court (Tex. 227, Preston v. 700 S.W.2d jurisdictiоn, that county-wide have Crim.App.1985). then to Arti looked Local holding was based on Government cles 998 and Local Government if now applicable, sections which are Code, which at the time sections all, municipalities. A Type governing appointment city police has fact, Angel relied on in language Angel, officers. at 732-33. S.W.2d section even from the code been eliminated Those articles offi- municipal police applying the same cers. Id., marshals, county-wide. citing which is Ann. art. 999. We Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. appeals decisions Subsequent court offi city police therefore concluded Angel’s application limited the have county-wide jurisdiction to ar cers employed holding city poliсe Angel, 740 at 736. rest offenders. Yeag types municipalities. certain See er, (Tex.App.-Waco law 570 n. 3 If our examination of case 2000) there, to officers {Angel apply does not were to end the State would 6701(d) war- Regulat- "Any peace without officer 1. Article of the Uniform Act committing a violation ing Highways read rant a found Traffic on as follows: of this subtitle.” "Any peace to arrest officer is authorized any person commit- without warrant found (Ver- Stat. Ann. art. 3. See Tex.Rev.Civ. any provision ting of [the violation 1963), May repealed Act of non Uniform Act].” 149, 49(1), Leg., Tex. Gen. 70th ch. now reads: Laws 2. Section 543.001 412 Dallas, Dallas, employed by municipality); a Class B City Inc. v. 792 of of

Reichaert, 348, (1990). (Tex.App. 569, 830 351 However, 5.W.2d 572 the geo- -San pet. ref’d) (Angеl Antonio does graphic scope of home-rule municipality not apply employed by to officers Class jurisdictional officers’ can- C No municipality). directly court has limitless. be Angel addressed the of whether Dillard, Arlington v. 116 Tex. applies employed by to officers home rule (1927), Supreme 294 S.W. the Texas municipalities. Because this was the State City Arlington, Court held that of Attorney’s Prosecuting ground first for re municipality, prohibit home rule could not view, disagree with the majority’s failure by of certain use streets buses and my to issue address this and offer own streets, other vehicles for hire. Those al- analysis. city within the limits of though Arlington, the United States District part highway system. of the state Court in upon Dallas was called consid- The held that did not Arlington court er recently changed and somewhat power interfere with the use of the confusing law this area. States United highway beyond state limits Coleman, v. F.Supp.2d 584-86 streets, prohibiting use of those and that (N.D.Tex.2001). The con- District Court of purporting the effect the ordinance geographic jurisdiction cluded that the of 451-52, do so was extraterritorial. Id. at city police officers after the amend- The, quoted early court S.W. longer depends type ments no on the of constitutional commentator:- them, municipality employing but 2.12 officer’s classification under Article upon powers municipali- conferred the Code of Criminal Procedure.4 Id. at must be ties construed with reference to 585. Municipal police nоt au- officers are object creation, namely, of their as 14.03(g)5 thorized under Articles 2.12 and agencies govern- the State in local make arrests their ment. The State can them for no create for traffic violations. Id. The Coleman purpose, powers and it can confer court noted there is no other statute end, government without no other defining geographic scope city police coming at once with ... max- conflict law, Looking to officers. the common designed agencies all the ims to confine suggested by Angel, the court concluded government to the exercise their that city officers’ ends at wherever proper functions. And Coleman, limits.6 at F.Supp.2d attempt shall exеrcise powers province not within municipalities proper

Home rule from differ A, B, self-government, general-law right local municipali- and C whether legisla- express legis- ties “look to acts to do so claimed under power, only grant ture not for from grants by implication but lative charter, powers.” limitations on them Fare MJR’s act must be considered as Municipal police jurisdic- officers are when own classified violations outside their 2.12(3). under Article tion. 14.03(g) gener Article states that list- The Coleman court did note that this 2.12(4), "rangers ed subject exception. in Article al pursuit” rule is to a "hot Coleman, Safety F.Supp.2d commissioned Public Commis- n. 2. See also (Tex.Crim. sion Department Yeager and the Director of the Safеty” may App.2003). Public make arrests for traffic vires, authori- enough therefore was not bestow altogether ultra session police stop appellant ty on the Odessa void. his vehi- traffic violation and search for the Thomas quoting at 294 S.W. Id. appellant is The fact cle. Cooley, M. A Treatise on the Constitution- searched, by Odessa stopped, and arrested Legis- Upon al Limitations Which Rest although at all ever no crime police American lative of the of the Power States city limits of Odessa. occurred within ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍(7th ed.). al- passage, This Union quoted power to the though reference to address majority Because fails is legislate, a home-rule by the State brought for review ground the situation here. equally Attоrney instead resolves Prosecuting municipality simply pow- not have the does limit- on Deputy Paquette’s this case based jurisdiction of er to extend the territorial arrest, respectfully ed connection employees beyond geographic limits its dissent. municipality.

of the An Although statutory for the basis holding changed has been gel significantly (as above), discussed this Court’s reason ing the case is still sound. Because scope of rule offi home statute, jurisdiction cers’ defined not An it must be controlled common law. Dietrich, DIETRICH, Kevin Denise Preston v. gel, citing Dietrich, a minor Seth (Tex.Crim.App. child, Appellants, 1985). law, At common municipal jurisdictional authority only officers had GOODMAN, Harold C. Jr. Winford Therefore, city within limits. Goodman, Appellees. J. Apрeals holding Court of was correct not that the Odessa officers did No. 14-01-01168-CV. jurisdiction to make a warrantless Texas, Appeals Court of arrest limits of search or outside the (14th Dist.). Houston Nothing in Odessa. Article 14.03 give the Code of Criminal Procedure would July authority to an arrest make such 11, 2003. Rehearing Overruled Dec. municipality. outside their own Moreover, Appeals the Court of correct-

ly held that the could not for a traffic violation that oc- outside their curred witness, on a “collective did based theory cause. knowledge” probable author- Deputy Paquette jurisdictional ity probable cause to believe violation committed. traffic had been However, Paquette the fact Deputy in the Odessa peripherally involved investigation drug pos- police’s alleged

Case Details

Case Name: Armendariz v. State

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Dec 10, 2003

Citation: 123 S.W.3d 401

Docket Number: 0070-02

Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.