Page 36 - TPA Journal November December 2014
P. 36
challenged police officers’ actions). “The near the ICE facility. Appellant stopped his
freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or vehicle when it reached the end of an alley.
challenge police action without thereby Agent Stone observed the prongs of a stun
risking arrest is one of the principal gun sticking out of appellant’s shirt pocket
characteristics by which we distinguish a free and questioned appellant, who admitted to
nation from a police state.” having a pocket knife and a gun on his
In sum, based on foundational principles person. After Stone took custody of those
of First Amendment law, the Court concludes weapons, he conducted a pat-down search
that the First Amendment protects the right to of appellant, and appellant then admitted
videotape police officers in the performance that he had a second gun in his car. When
of their official duties, subject to reasonable Stone looked inside appellant’s vehicle and
time, place, and manner restrictions. found the second gun, he also saw a group of
(Ed. note: This case remains active in the zip ties, zip ties joined to form a set of plastic
District Court on other claims and is subject handcuffs, a jacket with a holster for
to further revision or review by the Fifth concealing a gun and with strips of duct tape
Circuit at a later time.) stuck on it, and bungee cords attached to
Buehler v. City of Austin, et. al., No. 1:13- cloth padding, which appeared to be gags.
CV-1100, Western District of Texas, Austin He also found a plastic bag that contained
Division. Memorandum Opinion issued July personal lubricant, a condom, and a Viagra-
24th, 2014. labeled pill bottle. Stone called for a
Midland police officer because he suspected
SEARCH & SEIZURE – REASONABLE that a kidnapping, rape, or murder was about
SUSPICION to be committed. He acknowledged that he
AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL OFFICER was not a Texas peace officer, he had not
A jury convicted appellant of the offense seen appellant commit either a felony or
of unlawful use of a criminal instrument with breach of the peace, and he did not secure a
the intent to commit the offense of search warrant before searching appellant’s
aggravated kidnapping or aggravated sexual vehicle.
assault and assessed punishment of twenty Appellant filed two pretrial motions to
years’ confinement. The jury also found that suppress evidence, the first of which was
appellant personally used or exhibited a directed at evidence obtained after his initial
deadly weapon, specifically a firearm, during detention. The trial court granted the first
the commission of the offense. On direct motion as to appellant’s statement given to
appeal, appellant claimed that the trial court an officer in the back of the police car and a
erred when it denied his motions to suppress portion of the video recording of appellant’s
evidence that was obtained from the initial statement given to the same officer at the
stop of his vehicle and his subsequent Midland Police Department. The trial court
detention. The court of appeals overruled that denied that motion as to all other challenged
claim and ultimately affirmed the judgment evidence and statements taken on that day.
of the trial court. The Court of Criminal The second motion to suppress was directed
Appeals affirms and upholds the conviction. at evidence obtained pursuant to a
An ICE agent stopped a suspicious vehicle subsequent search, with a warrant, of
32 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal
