Page 40 - November December 2020 TPA Journal

rule that such silence is intentional.” Liberty Mut. cocaine. He contended that the police officers who
Ins. Co. v. Adcock, 412 S.W.3d 492, 497 (Tex. conducted the traffic stop, Carla Rodriguez-
2013). However, the Legislature provided a mech- Montelongo and Javier Ramirez, “unjustifiably
anism for a magistrate to temporarily seal a search prolonged his detention beyond the amount of
warrant affidavit, in which it stated that an order to time needed to complete the purpose of the traffic
block disclosure of the affidavit to the public “may stop” in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
not . . . prohibit the disclosure of information relat- He also argued that his consent to search his vehi-
ing to the contents of a search warrant, the return cle was involuntary under this court’s six-part test
of a search warrant, or the inventory of property for determining whether consent was given freely
taken pursuant to a search warrant.” TEX. CODE and voluntarily.
CRIM. PROC. art. 18.011(d)(1). Thus, while not The magistrate judge (MJ) conducted a hearing on
expressing its intent regarding the status of a Soriano’s motion. Officer Rodriguez testified at
search warrant in the same way as for an arrest the hearing that on the day in question, she was
warrant, the Legislature could not have been more traveling eastbound on Interstate 10 with her part-
clear that the contents of the search warrant, war- ner, Officer Ramirez, performing routine traffic
rant return, or inventory may not be blocked. Id. patrol. Soriano was travelling in his vehicle east-
Given this express language in article bound and passed Officer Rodriguez’s patrol car.
18.011(d)(1), a court would likely conclude that a The speed limit was 80 miles per hour and Officer
search warrant, warrant return, and property Rodriguez clocked Soriano driving at 90 miles per
inventory are subject to public disclosure by a dis- hour. She also observed that the vehicle’s window
trict clerk. tint appeared to exceed the legal limit. She acti-
vated her emergency lights to make a traffic stop,
Opinion No. KP-0335, Oct. 20, 2020. which automatically activated the patrol car’s
**************************************** dash-cam video and the officers’ body cameras.
********************************** Officer Rodriguez1 approached Soriano’s vehicle
SEARCH & SEIZURE – CONSENT on the passenger side and speaking in Spanish,
REASONABLE SUSPICION – EXTENDING informed Soriano of the reason for the traffic stop:
TRAFFIC STOP “speed and the window tint.” She ran a “tint
meter” on Soriano’s windows, which confirmed
that his window tint exceeded the legal limit.
Andres Soriano appeals the district court’s denial Soriano then volunteered that his driver’s license
of his motion to suppress on grounds that he did had been suspended for approximately two years
not voluntarily consent to the search of his vehicle due to his prior receipt of tickets for speeding and
conducted during a traffic stop. For the following driving without insurance.
reasons, we AFFIRM. Officer Rodriguez asked Soriano where he was
going, and he responded that he was traveling
In August 2018, Soriano was arrested during a from El Paso to Odessa to see his mother and
traffic stop after a search of his vehicle revealed a brother and that he planned to return that day, that
suitcase that contained nine bundles of a substance night, or the next day. According to Officer
later determined to be cocaine having a total Rodriguez, it was rare for people to make such a
weight of 10,715 grams. He was charged with pos- trip on a Sunday. In her experience, people would
session with the intent to distribute five kilograms typically leave on Friday and return the following
or more of cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841. Sunday or Monday, particularly if they planned to
Soriano moved to suppress the discovery of the visit family. Soriano’s story did not seem credible

36 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal