Page 29 - TPA Journal March April 2025

Detective Ramirez sought the evidence, those rantless search “to prevent the imminent destruc-
were observations about the facts of the case and tion of evidence.” Whether law enforcement
not part of the legal decision. Consequently, we faced an emergency that justified acting without a
dismiss issues one and three as improvidently warrant calls for a case-by-case determination
granted and focus solely on the State’s second based on the totality of circumstances existing at
issue. The question before us is whether the court the time of the search or seizure.
of appeals failed to apply the proper standard for Because a warrantless search or seizure is per se
determining whether exigent circumstances exist- unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, once
ed by requiring a showing of affirmative conduct a defendant has shown that a warrantless search or
on the part of a suspect suggesting the destruction seizure has occurred, the burden shifts to the State
of evidence is imminent. to prove that an exception to the warrant require-
We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to sup- ment applies. To validate a warrantless search
press under a bifurcated standard of review. We based on exigent circumstances, the State must
review a trial court’s determination of whether a satisfy a two-step process. First, there must be
specific search or seizure was reasonable under a probable cause to enter or search a specific loca-
de novo standard, but we give trial courts almost tion. In the context of warrantless searches, prob-
complete deference in determining historical facts able cause exists “when reasonably trustworthy
that depend on credibility and demeanor. Because facts and circumstances within the knowledge of
the trial court did not make explicit findings of the officer on the scene would lead a man of rea-
fact in this case, we review the evidence in a light sonable prudence to believe that the instrumental-
most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and ity . . . or evidence of a crime will be found.”
assume that the trial court made implicit findings Second, an exigency that requires an immediate
of fact supported by the record. Generally, our action on the part of law enforcement must exist.
review is limited to the record at the time of the We have identified three categories of exigent cir-
suppression hearing. cumstances that justify a warrantless intrusion by
The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of police officers: (1) providing aid or assistance to
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, persons whom law enforcement reasonably
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches believes are in need of assistance; (2) protecting
and seizures[.]” Generally, the Fourth police officers from persons whom they reason-
Amendment requires that searches and seizures be ably believe to be present, armed, and dangerous;
accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued and (3) preventing the destruction of evidence or
upon probable cause and particularly describing contraband. In this case, we are only concerned
the items to be searched or seized. A warrantless with the third circumstance.
search or seizure is per se unreasonable under the As discussed above, a warrantless seizure of per-
Fourth Amendment unless it falls within a recog- sonal property is per se unreasonable.
nized exception to the warrant requirement. This principle applies even though a Fourth
One such exception is based upon the existence of Amendment challenge may ultimately focus on
exigent circumstances. The exigent-circumstances the subsequent search of a container rather than its
exception applies when “the exigencies of the sit- initial seizure.
uation make the needs of law enforcement so com- When law enforcement has probable cause to
pelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively believe that a container holds contraband or evi-
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” The dence of a crime, but has not secured a warrant,
exception enables law enforcement officers to law enforcement may seize the property, pending
handle emergencies—situations presenting a the issuance of the warrant to examine the con-
“compelling need for official action and no time to tents, if the exigencies of the circumstances
secure a warrant.” Under this exception, law demand it or some other recognized exception to
enforcement may be justified in conducting a war-

Mar-Apr 2025 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 25