Texas Criminal Procedure: Bubany OUTLINE

Fall 2011

I. Arrest Generally A. Impact of Lawful & Unlawful Arrests: Why does it matter? 1. An unlawful arrest could result in the evidence recovered being inadmissible. This doesnt mean it will prevent prosecution. 2. In Texas, we start off with the presumption that w/out a warrant, the arrest is per se unreasonable unless a statutory exception exists. 3. Admissibility of evidence is evaluated at a suppression hearing held before trial during a suppression hearing. 4. Arrests may be mad with or without a warrant. B. Arrest v. Investigative Detention (Amores v. State) Consensual Encounter

Investigative Detention
Terry Stop

Arrest

1. It essential to determine what exactly occurs: an casual encounter, an investigative detention, or an arrest. a. Arrest: A detention becomes an arrest when it is obvious that a detainee is going to be held for a criminal charge. There must be government action that terminates the liberty of the detainee. i. Handcuffing: Handcuffing is NOT a bright-line indication of arrest. You can be handcuffed but NOT arrested in Texas. (Ex: officer safety) ii. Drawing a Weapon: (seizure at gunpoint) Drawing a weapon is NOT a bright-line indication of arrest. iii. Probable Cause: Probable cause is required for arrest. 1) Innocent activity: You can base probable cause on innocent activity, like getting on a plane, because, combined with other facts, it may justify probable cause. b. Investigative Detention/Terry Stop: You must have an investigation, with questions, to call it an investigative detention. i. Reasonable Suspicion: Reasonable suspicion is required for investigate detention. ii. Frisk: You need additional reasonable suspicion to justify iii. Flight: 2. Amores v. State a. Issue: Was there an arrest of an investigative detention? Depending on which one it was, the court may or may not hold it valid which further depends on reasonable suspicion v. probable cause. b. Holding: There was not probable cause here because it was an arrest, and therefore it was invalid. 3. Baldwin v. State a. Officer Safety: An experienced officer knows that using this to justify handcuffing or an arrest without probable cause is successful. Here, the officer us trying to demonstrate that he has reasonable suspicion and that justifies the detention. b. Issue: Was this an arrest or detention? c. Holding: Whatever you call what happened, it was not justified. The majority says we dont have to decide that whether it was an arrest or a detention because, if there was an arrest, he didnt have probable cause which makes it invalid.

d. Plain Feel/View Doctrine: i. A valid investigative detention can confer upon an officer the authority to pat down the suspect for weapons. ii. An officer conducting a pat down may seize an object whose contour or mass makes its identity known as contraband. But when the conditions of the doctrine are not present, the officer cannot search without probable cause. e. Racial Profiling Art. 3.05: Was this racial profiling in Baldwin (because blacks didnt live in the cimplex)? Racial profiling occurs when an officers SOLE reason for arresting is race. Here it was not because he was black but because he was black, no other black lived there, etc. II. Arrest with Warrant A. Generally: Texas adheres to a four corners approach to affidavit review. The probable cause must be determined by reference to the allegations contained within four corners of the affidavit rather than by other facts made known to the reviewing magistrate. B. Arrest Warrant Affidavit Requirements: Miller v. State 1. Court holds the complaint inadequate the Court says it is merely conclusory. 2. Issue: There probably was PC, but the affidavits were not presented to the magistrate. 3. Point: Officer didnt submit probable cause to the magistrate. 4. Four Corners Rule the PC facts need to be presented in complaint or be sworn. Magistrate should tell officer to include and swear to the necessary information before granting the warrant. The 4-corner requirement makes the process for legit, and reviewable. 5. Burden: On appeal, when Defendant complains of warrant, the State carries the burden of producing the warrant. If the state is arguing an exception to the warrant exception, the state carries the burden of producing warrant and supporting affidavit. Most important part of appeal is getting all of the stuff into the record that you are challenging. C. Arrest After Charges are Filed: Crane v. State D. Execution: Visor, Jones, Williams (all v. State) 1. Generally: The execution or making of an arrest with or without warranty may also result in the suppression of evidence seized pursuant to that arrest, or in civil liability for the arresting officer, or both. 2. Visor v. State 3. Knock and Announce: Jones v. State (Art. 15.25-15.26) a. Facts: Appellant appeals from a capital murder conviction, contending he was unlawfully arrested and inadmissible evidence collected during that search and arrest was allowed in. The officers kicked down Appellants door and found him in the bath tub; then the officers seized items from the home. b. Issue: Did the officers violate Art. 15.25-15.26 of the c. Holding: Non-compliance with Art. 15.25-15.26 does not invalidate the arrest or the search. The majority does not see how non-compliance with the formal rules of an arrest should invalidate an arrest when non-compliance with the formal rules for a search do not. d. Rule: 4. Taken Before Magistrate: Williams v. State (Art. 15.17) a. Facts: Appellant was convicted of capital murder. He appeals, contending that his confession was unlawfully obtained because the officers/detectives were in violation of Art. 15.17. b. Issue: Were the officers/detectives in violation of Art. 15.17 by not taking the defendant before a magistrate until after his confession and possibly subjecting him to other mistreatment to obtain a confession. c. Holding: No.

d. Rule: Article 15.17 requires that the person making the arrest shall without unnecessary delay take the person arrested or have him taken before some magistrate of the county where the accused was arrested (now updated to say within 48 hours). i. Failure to comply with the statute does not automatically invalidate a confession. ii. Absent a showing of a causal connection between an accuseds confession and the failure to take the accused promptly before a magistrate, the validity of the condession is not affected. 1) Appellant must make the connect and articulate in what way the absence of following 15.17 was connected to the confession. III. Arrest without Warrant