Page 34 - Texas Police Journal November- December 2013

like a security guardbut neither offense, possession of that Miranda was violated, because the confession was
body armor or possession of a deadly weapon, facilitated involuntary, when police used a question first, warn
or furthered the commission of the other offense. later interrogation technique. Such a technique involved
the police interrogating a suspect without providing
In sum, we hold that a deadly-weapon finding for a Miranda warnings, obtaining a confession, then giving the
felony offense must contain some facilitation connection Miranda warnings and having the suspect repeat the
between the weapon and the felony. The deadly weapon incriminating statement.
must, in some manner, help facilitate the commission of We vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and
the felony. remand the case to that Court with instructions that it be
Plummer v. State, No. PD-1269-12, Tex. Ct. Crim. App. abated to the trial court for findings consistent with Carter.
Oct 9th, 2013. Specifically, the trial court should determine (1) whether
the original, unrecorded interview was custodial in nature,
(2) whether the appellant was Mirandized prior to his orig-
inal interrogation, (3) if not, whether the police deliber-
ately employed a two-step interrogation process, and (4) if
DOG SNIFF AT DOOR. they did, were any curative measures taken before the sec-
Appellant was charged with two counts of possession of ond confession. After these findings are filed, the case
a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. A dog shall be returned to the Court of Appeals.
sniff at his front door led to the charges against him. Vasquez v. State, No. PD-497-13, Tex. Ct. Crim. App.,
Appellant has filed petitions for discretionary review Oct. 23rd, 2013.
arguing that the appellate court erred under the Supreme
Courts recent opinion in Fla. v. Jardines, __ U.S. __, 133
S. Ct. 1409 (2013). In Jardines, the Supreme Court held
that using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner s porch to
investigate the contents of the home is a search within REASONABLE SUSPICION – IMPROPER
the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Jardines was PHOTOGRAPHY
handed down on March 26, 2013, 12 days after the appel-
late court issued its opinion in these cases. Appellant was charged with multiple offenses of
The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of improper photography. On direct appeal, appellants sole
Jardines. Accordingly, we grant Appellants petitions for issue asked, Does merely taking photographs at a public
discretionary review, vacate the judgments of the Court of pool give police reasonable suspicion to stop appellants
Appeals, and remand these cases to the Court of Appeals vehicle? The court of appeals overruled that single issue
in light of Jardines. and affirmed the trial courts judgments. We granted
Rivas v. State, No. PD-490-13, Tex. Ct. Crim. App., review of one of two grounds that appellant raised in his
Oct. 23, 2013. petition for discretionary review: Is crime afoot when a
person takes pictures at a public pool permitting a police
officer to conduct an investigative detention? We con-
clude that crime was not afoot, sustain that ground, and
MIRANDA WARNING PROCEDURES. reverse the court of appeals judgments.
Appellant was observed taking photographs of patrons
A jury found the appellant guilty of capital murder. On at a municipal swimming pool at a public park. The sub-
appeal, the appellant argued that the trial court committed jects of these photographs included women and children
reversible error by failing to suppress his confession. We who were wearing swimming attire. Police were notified,
shall vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and and patrol officers responded. The dispatched call
remand the case to that Court with instructions to remand described an unknown man in a suspicious vehicle, specif-
this case to the trial court for findings of fact and conclu- ically a male subject ina tan Ford Taurus taking photos at
sions of law. the [c]ity pool and they said he was parked beside the
In Missouri v. Seibert,5 a fractured Supreme Court held fence. The responding officer testified that he saw a vehi-

32 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal