A civil or common law trespass by the police is a ground to suppress in Texas

Under Texas statute excluding evidence obtained in violation of the law, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.23(a) (“No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case.”), a civil or common law trespass does not constitute a violation of the law within the meaning of article 38.23(a). Crowell v. State, 147 Tex. Crim. 299, 180 S.W.2d 343, 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 1944) (applying predecessor statute); Carroll v. State, 911 S.W.2d 210, 221 (Tex. App.–Austin 1995, no pet.); Delosreyes v. State, 853 S.W.2d 684, 689 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d). Doss v. State, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 5822 (Tex. App. – Austin July 24, 2007).

Officers conducted a traffic stop for no turn signal when defendant pulled into a convenince store. Because of his nervousness, they had him get out of the car for a patdown. Officers then noticed a small packet of crack where the tire would have rolled, but it was intact. The defendant’s conviction for possession was affirmed, and the evidence of possession was sufficient. Johnson v. State, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 5824 (Tex. App. – Tyler July 25, 2007).*

Trial court’s finding of voluntariness of consent was not clearly erroneous, so defense counsel could not be ineffective for not arguing that the statement was the product of an involuntary consent. State v. Brazil, 2007 Wisc. App. LEXIS 656 (July 24, 2007).*

A defendant who had an IQ of 67 and “was schizophrenic and evinced a mixed personality disorder with passive-aggressive, dependent, and depressive features,” as testified to in the case in chief, could still consent to a search. “In the present case, despite the evidence of the defendant’s mental disorders, no evidence really contradicts the trial court’s finding that the defendant freely and knowingly consented to the search of his home. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized from the defendant’s home.” State v. Shelton, 2007 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 598 (July 26, 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.