Page 54 - July August 2019 TPA Journal
P. 54
testimonies are insufficient to convict by arrest Appellee for public intoxication, we
themselves to corroborate each other, and I am reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and
not the only one who has reached this conclusion. remand the case to that court for further
proceedings.
1This is also an issue for the testimony of
undercover peace officers and special After Appellee was arrested for public
investigators because their testimony must be intoxication without a warrant, he filed a motion
corroborated as well. TEX. CODE CRIM. to suppress. As we stated over thirty years ago in
PROC. art. 38.141(a). Like the accomplice- Russell v. State:
witness and “jail house” informant laws, the
undercover peace officer statute does not prohibit When a defendant seeks to suppress evidence on
the testimony of an undercover officer or special the basis of a Fourth Amendment violation, this
investigator from being corroborated by the Court has placed the burden of proof initially
testimony of an accomplice or “jail house” upon the defendant. As the movant in a motion to
informant. The statutes simply do not refer to suppress evidence, a defendant must produce
each other. evidence that defeats the presumption of proper
police conduct and therefore shifts the burden of
However, the corroboration statutes that I have proof to the State. A defendant meets his initial
discussed are statutorily imposed sufficiency burden of proof by establishing that a search or
rules and are not constitutional in nature. The seizure occurred without a warrant.
“mutual corroboration” issue that I address today Once a defendant has established 1) that a search
appears to be one of public policy, which is or seizure occurred and 2) that no warrant was
firmly in the sphere of the legislature. It is not the obtained, the burden of proof shifts to the State.
role of the judiciary to decide whether the policy If the State produces evidence of a warrant, the
underlying a statute enacted by the legislature is burden of proof is shifted back to the defendant
a good one. to show the invalidity of the warrant. If the State
is unable to produce evidence of a warrant, then
Rodriguez v. State, Ct. Crim App. No. PD-1116- it must prove the reasonableness of the search or
18, Jan. 30, 2019. CONCURRING ON seizure.
REFUSAL OF DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS In the case before us, it was undisputed that
*************************************** Appellee was arrested without a warrant. Indeed,
***** at the beginning of the hearing on the motion to
********************** suppress, the State readily acknowledged that it
had the burden. Thus, the burden shifted to the
PROBABLE CAUSE – COLLECTIVE State to prove that the arrest fell within an
KNOWLEDGE DOCTRINE exception to the warrant requirement.
Appellee, Roger Anthony Martinez, filed a To satisfy its burden, the State tried to show that
motion to suppress challenging the legality of his Appellee was committing the offense of public
arrest for public intoxication. The motion was intoxication, apparently relying upon the
granted by the trial court, and the court of appeals exception for offenses committed in the presence
affirmed. Because there was probable cause to of the police. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
50 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal
