SAN ANTONIO COURT OF APPEALS REJECTS POLICE REASONING FOR ENTRY TO SEIZE MARIJUANA


 An important case out of the San Antonio area (Bexar County) was decided by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in April 2013. The Court considered whether a police officer was justified in forcibly entering the apartment of a man who possessed marijuana while living with a six-month-old baby. This type of issue will come up across the State of Texas, particularly in urban areas like Dallas, Tarrant, Collin and Denton Counties, and similar cases will probably be decided by the Dallas and Fort Worth Courts of Appeals.

When the police were informed of the odor of marijuana coming from the apartment, an officer went to the apartment and knocked on the door. The resident of the apartment cracked open the door, and the officer asked if the six-month-old baby or the baby's mother were at home. The resident answered that neither of them were home, and the officer left.

Shortly after that, the officer returned to the apartment with a fellow officer. Believing that if he left to obtain a warrant, the resident would try to destroy the marijuana, one of the officers forced his way into the apartment. The officer pointed a Taser gun at the resident, then handcuffed and searched him. Marijuana was found in the resident's backpack, and he was placed under arrest.

At trial, the resident asked that the marijuana be suppressed as evidence, claiming that the police officers performed an illegal search and seizure when they discovered it. The State answered that the police officers were justified in entering the apartment without a warrant because the destruction of the marijuana was imminent. The trial court agreed with the State and admitted the seized marijuana as evidence against the resident.

The Fourth Court of Appeals at San Antonio, which includes Bexar County, reversed the trial court's decision. The court of appeals said that there was no evidence indicating that the resident would have destroyed the marijuana had the police officers left to obtain a warrant.

When the State appealed, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the court of Appeals. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures; when a police officer enters a residence without a warrant, his search of the residence presumptively violates the Fourth Amendment. The officer must then show that the circumstances were such that he would have been unable to obtain a warrant in time to prevent a crime or destruction of evidence. In this case, no such evidence was ever presented.

Комментарии

Отправить комментарий

Популярные сообщения из этого блога

CRIMINAL APPEALS COURT REMINDS OFFICERS THAT THEY CANNOT STAY FOR DINNER AFTER ASKED TO LEAVE

Изображение
  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals addressed a situation last week that I have seen come up in Dallas County drug cases more than once: what do the police have to do when somebody lets the police come into their home but then changes their mind? The case went to the Court of Criminal Appeals from the San Antonio Court of Appeals, with the case originating from Kerrville. The defendant was charged with methamphetamine possession. When deputy sheriffs responded to a disturbance call at her apartment, the defendant answered the door, and she appeared intoxicated and distraught. The officers asked to go inside, and the defendant agreed. While waiting on a warrant check, the defendant changed her mind about letting the police in and asked them to leave. The officers ignored her request because they wanted the warrant check to came back before they decided to leave. Lawyer office in Georgia . While waiting, the officers saw evidence of drug use, and the defendant shortly thereafter admit
Далее...

TEXAS LAW BOND CONSIDERATIONS APPLY IN DALLAS COURTS

Изображение
 Issues concerning the defendant's right to a bond and the amount of the bond are often contested after an arrest in Dallas County. Both the federal and state constitutions, and specific Texas law, prohibit excessive bail. A hearing can be held, and if the defendant can appeal if he believes that the bond is set too high in violation of his rights. In setting the amount of bail, a court should consider factors such as: (1) the defendant's work record; (2) the defendant's family and community ties; (3) the defendant's length of residency; (4) the defendant's prior criminal record; (5) the existence of other outstanding bonds, if any; and (6) any aggravating circumstances alleged to have been involved in the charged offense. The primary purpose of an appearance bond is to secure the presence of the accused at trial on the offense charged. Lawyer office in Georgia . The amount of bail must be high enough to give reasonable assurance that the accused will appear as req
Далее...

HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS BLAMES DEFENDANT FOR TEXAS ATTORNEY'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE IMMIGRATION WARNINGS

Изображение
 Because it affects so many resident aliens and other immigrants in the process of becoming citizens in Dallas and other metropolitan parts of Texas, I have been keeping my eye closely on ongoing developments in Texas applying the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky. In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that defense lawyers have a duty under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution to accurately and specifically advise a defendant about deportation and other immigration consequences that will result from a guilty plea. Lawyer office in Georgia . A defendant will plead guilty either under an "open" guilty plea to a judge or jury, where the punishment is left to the judge or jury, or in a situation involving a plea bargain, a more common scenario. The case law says that, whenever a defendant pleads guilty and waives his rights, the defendant has to be informed about immigration consequences in terms that are "succinct, clear and specific.&qu
Далее...