Court of Criminal Appeals
Tilghman v. State
No. PD-0676-19 6/23/21
Issue:
Was drug evidence in plain view subject to suppression when it was seized after a hotel manager sought police assistance in evicting the hotel guests?
Holding:
No. When a defendant violates a hotel policy against illegal activity and the staff take affirmative steps to evict him based on that violation, the defendant loses his expectation of privacy. Here, “police officers’ entry to effectuate the eviction did not violate [the defendant’s] Fourth Amendment rights.” Read opinion.
Concurrence (McClure, J.):
“I write separately to express my concern that under this eviction theory, there is a danger that a hotel manager could simply show up with police, immediately extinguish any privacy interest that a guest has in their room via eviction, and allow police to search a room without regard for the Fourth Amendment. Without direction from the Legislature as to specific eviction and notice requirements involving hotel guests, however, I reluctantly concur with the majority …” Read opinion.
Commentary:
The keys in this case were the defendant’s violation of hotel policy and the hotel employees taking affirmative steps to begin eviction of the defendant. The majority opinion cites liberally to several federal decisions, as well as the dissenting opinion in the court of appeals. This is now probably the leading case in Texas on a defendant’s expectation of privacy in a hotel room after having violated hotel policy. Do not try to expand this holding to landlord-tenant situations, as the court notes that there are several statutory provisions that deal with evictions and a tenant’s rights in those situations.
State v. Mata
No. PD-0810-19 6/23/21
Issue:
Does the Miranda rule require the police to give Miranda warnings to a suspect who is in custody before asking him the location of a kidnapped child?
Holding:
No. In New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court outlined a “public safety” exception to the Miranda rule, and although it “involved the location of a weapon … its rationale was broader than that, and that rationale easily applies to a situation involving a kidnapped child. … [T]he Miranda rule poses no bar to the admission of the roadside statements in this case.” Read opinion.
Concurrence (Walker, J. joined by McClure, J.):
“[T]he Quarles public safety exception to giving Miranda warnings does not turn upon the presence of a gun, whether someone was kidnapped, or whether public safety can be generally pointed to. The exception instead turns upon whether the warnings themselves could create a threat to public safety.” Read opinion.
Commentary:
This is a short decision that extends Quarles to the urgent attempt to discover the location of a kidnapped child. It certainly seems possible that the “public safety” exception could be applied to other very serious, urgent circumstances. But you will want to read both this decision and Quarles before venturing into other serious, urgent areas.
Kerr v. State
No. PD-1184-20 6/23/21
Issue:
Must a defendant make a vindictiveness objection to preserve a claim of presumptive vindictiveness on appeal?
Holding:
The Court, in this case, refused the State’s Petition for Discretionary Review.
Dissent (Keller, P.J.):
“[T]he court of appeals’s decision in this case has created a split in the courts of appeals that we should step in to resolve. And given the systemic nature of error preservation, whether an objection is required in a presumption-of-vindictiveness situation is an important issue of the sort that this Court should resolve, even without an appellate conflict.” Read opinion.
Commentary:
It is not at all clear why the court chose to refuse the State’s petition for discretionary review. As noted by Presiding Judge Keller’s dissenting opinion, there is a split of authority in the courts of appeals regarding whether a defendant should be required to object at trial to raise a claim of vindictiveness on appeal. This case serves as a good reminder that, if you have a case in which the defendant has to be re-sentenced, make clear on the record any change in circumstances that would justify a higher punishment.
Courts of Appeals
In re Garcia
No. 04-21-00142-CR 6/16/21
Issue:
Must a judge rule on a properly filed motion for post-trial discovery of exculpatory evidence under the Michael Morton Act within three months of receiving the motion?
Holding:
Yes. In this case, the judge was required to perform the ministerial act of considering and ruling on the defendant’s motion, and “up to three months can be a reasonable time to rule on a motion.” However, because the State and the judge had not explained or justified the decision not to rule on the defendant’s motion, the Court conditionally granted mandamus relief. Read opinion.
Commentary:
If you are familiar with mandamus actions in which a defendant is urging the trial judge to rule on his motion (and I do not necessarily recommend that you get familiar), you will see this opinion as a pretty straightforward application of those prior decisions. It appears in this case that the Michael Morton Act does not apply to the defendant’s case because he was charged and convicted before the effective date of the Act. Not mentioned in the opinion is the fact that the Michael Morton Act does not turn on a motion filed with trial court, but on a request made to the State. All of this pretty academic though. The trial judge should probably just rule on the motion and move on.
Texas Attorney General Opinion
KP-0374 6/21/21
Issue:
Can a constable employed as a sheriff’s deputy receive: (1) the sick leave and vacation benefits of a deputy, and (2) overtime payment under the Justice Assistance Grant?
Conclusion:
“Provided a county’s annual budget appropriates sick leave, vacation, and overtime compensation for the sheriff’s deputies, the county may provide such compensation to a constable employed as a sheriff’s deputy. As administrator of Justice Assistance Grants, the Criminal Justice Division of the Office of the Governor must determine whether a constable may receive overtime payment for service as a deputy sheriff from the Justice Assistance Grant.” Read opinion.