Page 29 - TPA Journal January February 2025

de facto arrest when the police stopped him, cause threshold. In addition, all the evidence
handcuffed him, and detained him while they from the alleged warrantless search would be
searched his apartment. Jefferson challenged the admissible under the independent source doc-
use of his initial confession that cocaine and a trine.
gun were in the apartment. He claims he never (sentencing discussion omitted)
made that statement, but that even if he did, it
was obtained unlawfully (in part due to his When reviewing a district court’s denial of a
unlawful arrest). Last, Jefferson argued that the motion to suppress and denial of a Franks hear-
search warrant affidavit and the arrest warrant ing, this court applies de novo review for conclu-
affidavit omitted the fact that evidence had been sions of law and clear error review for factual
obtained unlawfully and that he was therefore findings made by the district court. “Evidence is
entitled to a Franks hearing. viewed in the light most favorable to the party
that prevailed in the district court—in this case,
The district court denied Jefferson’s motion to the Government.” When the denial of a motion
suppress. The district court determined that to suppress is based on live testimony, “the clear-
Detective Jones’s testimony was more reliable ly erroneous standard is particularly strong
than K.J.’s. Specifically, it found Detective Jones because the judge had the opportunity to observe
was both “detailed” and “credible.” In contrast, the demeanor of the witnesses.”
the district court found K.J. was not reliable. (sentencing discussion omitted)
K.J.’s account of what happened differed even
from the facts that her father listed in his motion Jefferson argues that when the police first
to suppress. Plus, she was young, had difficulty approached him, he became subject to a de facto
remembering what happened, and had every rea- arrest. He alleges that because he was handcuffed
son to aid her father. The district court further for a substantial period of time, was moved to a
stated that even if Jefferson had been handcuffed different location, and was confronted by numer-
prior to admitting to having cocaine in the apart- ous officers, the initial stop was transformed into
ment, that action by the government only a full arrest. Jefferson argues his situation is anal-
amounted to an investigatory stop rather than a ogous to that of United States v. Acosta-Colon,
full-blown arrest. In addition, that investigatory where a de facto arrest occurred because the
stop was based on reasonable suspicion. The dis- defendant was not allowed to travel, was moved
trict court also determined that the pictures time- to a different location, and placed in handcuffs.
stamped prior to the issuance of the warrant were Further, if K.J.’s testimony is credited, the offi-
explained by a failure to change the internal cers had firearms drawn when they confronted
clock of the camera to Central Daylight Time Jefferson. If Jefferson was subjected to a de facto
from Central Standard Time. arrest, he contends that his admission should be
suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Finally, the district court denied Jefferson’s
request for a Franks hearing. The district court The government responds by arguing that no
found that Jefferson presented no evidence that arrest took place until after Jefferson had admit-
he did not make the admission about the cocaine ted to having cocaine and a gun in the apartment.
and the gun being present in the apartment. In Further, they claim that no officers drew their
addition, the district court found that there was guns, blocked Jefferson’s car, nor prevented him
sufficient evidence to support probable cause from walking away. Instead, Jefferson was not
coming from evidence not obtained in the alleged handcuffed until after the admission.
unlawful search. Accordingly, the evidence that
was allegedly gathered unlawfully was not neces- A Terry stop is a brief detention used by officers
sary for the government to meet the probable

Jan.-Feb. 2025 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 29