{"id":4529,"date":"2010-11-29T07:35:24","date_gmt":"2010-08-09T07:35:02","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-08-09T07:35:02","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4529","title":{"rendered":"TX6: State failed to show community caretaking function stop was valid"},"content":{"rendered":"

The state could not show that the defendant\u2019s stop under the community caretaking doctrine was valid. The trial court\u2019s finding is reversed. Travis v. State<\/a>, 322 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App.\u2013\u2013Texarkana 2010):<\/p>\n

Since \u201cthe purpose of the community caretaking exception is to allow an officer to \u201cseize\u201d and assist an individual whom he reasonably believes is in need of help, the first factor is entitled to the greatest weight.\u201d Id. In this case, this factor undeniably weighs against admission since Poole testified Travis did not appear to be in distress. See id<\/a>. at 277-78. Although there is record evidence that Travis was driving on a county road suggesting isolation, he may have been close to an intersection. It is the State’s burden to demonstrate the reasonableness of the stop. State v. Dixon<\/a>, 151 S.W.3d 271, 273 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2004), aff’d, 206 S.W.3d 587<\/a> (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We find this factor to be neutral. See Corbin<\/a>, 85 S.W.3d at 278. Poole testified Travis was alone, indicating that he did not have access to assistance. However, because Travis was not distressed, there is not much weight to this factor. In regard to the fourth factor, Poole testified he had no reason to believe Travis was a danger to himself or others. Nevertheless, Poole stopped Travis \u201cto check his current state, his welfare, to make sure he is okay.\u201d While the trial court was free to consider Poole’s subjective concern, we find Poole’s belief that Travis required aid objectively unreasonable. Therefore, the narrow community caretaker exception did not justify Poole’s stop. Thus, Travis’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The government showed that the search of defendant\u2019s room was with consent, so his fruit of the poisonous tree argument fails with it. United States v. Quintero, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79350 (D. Ariz. July 12, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4529\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}