Page 27 - TPA Journal January - February 2018
P. 27
explanation when probable cause to arrest is Officer Martinez woke Appellee up by calling out
otherwise apparent. to him and began asking questions. During a
check of Appellees identity with dispatch, she
We conclude that the courts below erred in discovered that Appellee had several local traffic
concluding that the police officer lacked probable warrants for his arrest. Officer Martinez then told
cause to arrest appellee. We reverse the judgments Appellee that he was under arrest for the traffic
of the courts below and remand the case to the trial warrants. She then searched Appellees person and
court. found a cigarette box containing two small
baggies of a white powdery substance that, in the
State v. Ford, Tex. Crim. App. No. PD-1299-16, officer s experience, appeared to be cocaine.
September 20, 2017. During the search of his person, Appellee kept
staring at his own vehicle. After discovering the
baggies on Appellees person, Officer Martinez
SEARCH & SEIZURE – SEARCH searched Appellees Jeep. During this search,
INCIDENT TO ARREST. Officer Martinez picked up a shirt from the
passenger seat, and a dark-colored pouch fell out.
During a traffic stop, Appellee was arrested for The pouch contained a baggie of what appeared to
outstanding warrants. During that arrest, the be cocaine. A field test for cocaine returned a
officer searched Appellees person and discovered positive result.
illegal drugs. The officer then searched Appellees
Jeep and discovered more illegal drugs. The courts Appellee filed a motion to suppress. The trial
below held that the search of the Jeep was not a court denied the motion as to the evidence found
valid search incident to arrest because there was on Appellees person but granted the motion as to
no reason to believe that the Jeep contained the evidence found in the Jeep. The trial courts
evidence relating to the outstanding warrants for findings of fact relate only to the portion of the
which Appellee had been arrested. The court of motion that was granted and do not refer to what
appeals further held that the discovery of the evidence was discovered in the search of
illegal drugs on Appellees person could not Appellees person.
supply a new basis for arrest, for the purpose of
conducting a search incident to arrest, that would In its conclusions of law, the trial court stated,
justify the search of the Jeep. We disagree and among other things:
hold that discovery of drugs on a suspects person,
after an arrest on traffic warrants but before the 3. The officer did not have probable cause to
search of the suspects vehicle, can supply a new believe that the vehicle contained evidence of a
basis for arrest that would justify search of the crime before the search of the Defendants
vehicle as a search incident to arrest. vehicle.
Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the * * *
court of appeals. 6. There existed no reason to believe that evidence
of the traffic violations for which there was a
At the motion to suppress hearing, Officer Mariel warrant authorizing the Defendants arrest by the
Martinez testified to the following: At 5:12 in the police officer, might be found in the vehicle.
morning, she observed a Jeep parked on a grassy 7. The search of the Defendants vehicle was not
area next to a bar, with the driver s door open and justified as a search incident to his traffic warrants
the engine turned off. As she approached the Jeep, arrest.
she saw Appellee asleep in the driver s seat. 8. The search of the Defendants vehicle was not
Jan./Feb. 2018 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 23
