C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Ap pe lla nt,
v. CANDI CE KENDI KI AN, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 01 82 -C R

Appea l from 346th District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC # 20070D01656)

O P I N I O N The State of T exas appea ls a suppression order trial g rante d in f avor of Candice Kendikian. F or the re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e a ff

ir m. F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND Kendikian stands c harg ed by indictment with the m urder of and injury to Malac hi Torra nce,
a c hil d young e r t

ha n f if te e n y e ars of

a g e . K e nd iki an a

nd he r h usband, Jos hu a

Wen se l, w e re bo th suspects, but neither w as under arr est. The c ouple went voluntar ily to the El Paso Poli ce D epar tment and ea ch g ave a

separ ate state ment which wa s videotaped. The y wer e not told by the offic ers that these individ u al statements wer e re corde d. Wensel then asked to spe ak to his wife. The police acquie sced a

nd broug ht Kendikian to see him. The pa ir wer e not informed that their conve rsation would be re corde d, and no ca mera , microphone, or

rec ording device was visi ble i n the room. The door was c losed while the two talke d, but there w as no express re prese ntation that their conve rsation would be private. The de tectives knoc ked on the door befor e re- enter ing. Kendikian left the room
a number of times to try to c all her mother. After their conver sation, Kendikian and Wensel we re allowed to leave the station.The trial c ourt enter ed a wr itten order suppr essing the re corde d conver sation betwee n

Kendikian an d W en s el
. T h e trial c ourt also enter ed finding s of fa ct which a re not c ontested on
a pp e a l: 1. Th a t on

the date in q

ue sti on , T he De fe nd ant a

nd Co- De fe nd ant, Joshu a

Wen se l, we re br ou g ht b y de te c tiv e s o f t he El Pa so Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt t o th e Cr ime s a g a ins t Persons offic e. 2. That on that date , neither of the defe ndants was under arr est for any acc usation. 3. That on that date , the Def endant, Candic e Ke ndikian, and Co-De fenda nt, J oshua Wen se l w e re c omm on -l aw w if e and hu sb and and that th e de te c tiv e s k

ne w this fa c t. 4. Th a t on

that date , Co -D e fe nd ant, Joshu a Wen se l ask e d to sp e a k w ithDe fe nd ant, Candice Ke n d i k i an and the de tectives put both defe ndants in a room and shut the door. 5. That at no time, did the dete ctives inform e ither Candice Kendikian or J oshua Wensel that any

conver sation they

had or w ould have would be rec orded. 6. That the room in which the defe ndants wer e plac ed did not have a ny obvious signs of re cordingdevice s. 7. That the defe ndant was never advised that any statement or c onversation she made or had w as beingrec orded. 8. The de tectives shut the door to the r oom and would knock be fore enter ing. The trial c ourt also issued conc lusions of law. The State disputes only Conclusions 1, 4, and 5. 1. Th e act io ns of

the de te c tiv e s o f t

he El Pa so Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt t e nd e d to c re a te an atmospher e that a r easona ble per son could believe he or she h ad an e x pectation of privac y . 2. The de fenda

nts were not under a

rre st at the time of the conve rsation. 3. The de tectives kne w that the def endants we re husba

nd and wife
. 4. The de fenda

nts, through the actions o f t he dete ctives, re asonably believed that they wer e havinga private conve rsation. 5. That no wa

rra nt or exception has bee n shown to justify the bre ach o f t he expectation of privac y

provided to the de fenda

nts.M OTI ON TO SU P P RE SS

I n it s so le po int

of e rr or , th e State c omp lai ns th at th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in suppressingthe evidenc e of K endikian’s r ecor ded conve rsat i o n with her husband in a police int e rv ie w r oo m. Standard of Review We review the t rial court's ruling on a mot ion to suppress evide nce f or an a buse of discr etion. Long v. State, 823 S.W .2d 259, 277 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991), cert. de nied, 50 5 U .S. 12 24 , 1 12 S.Ct
. 3042, 120 L .Ed.2d 910 (1992). At a suppre ssion hearing , the trial judg e is the sole finde r of f act a nd is free to believe or

disbelieve a

ny or all of the e vidence prese nted. Id. We gi v e almost total defe re n c e to th e tr ia l c o u rt' s d e te r mi n a ti o no f

h is to r ic a l f

a c ts th a t d e p e n d

o nc r e d ib il it

y and demea nor, but revie w de novo the tr ia l c ourt ' s a pp lic a tio n of

the law t o th e fa c ts i f r e so lut ion of tho se ultimate questions does not tur n on the evaluation of

cre dibilit y

and deme anor. See G uzman v. State, 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App. 1 9 9 7 ). I f the issue of the propriety of the trial c ourt’s suppression of the r ecor ded conve rsation is a question of lawwhich does not tur n on cre dibilit y

or d em ea n o r, we apply

the de novo standard of

revie w. State v. Sche ineman , 7 7 S. W. 3 d 8 1 0 , 8 12 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). Reasonable Ex pectation of Privacy The State maintains that ther e wa s no expectation of privacy in a police inter view room, a

nd that e v e n if K e n d ik ia

n h e ld th a t s u

b je c ti v e b e li e f

, s o c ie ty is n o t p r e p ar e d to r e c o g n iz e it a s
rea sonable. We disag ree . Th e F ourt

h A me ndme nt s e rv e s to sa fe g ua rd an in div idu a l' s p ri va c y

fr om u nr e a so na ble g overnme ntal intrusions. Ri c ha rd so n v . S tate , 865 S.W .2d 944, 948 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). A defe ndant may

challeng e the a dmission of evidence obtained by g overnme ntal intrusion only if shedisplay s a leg itimate expectation of privac y in the place invaded. Ra k as v . I lli no is , 439 U.S. 128, 14 3, 99 S.Ct . 4 21 , 5 8 L .E d. 2d 38 7 ( 19 78 ). I n d e te rm ini ngwhe th er Ken dik ian h a d a re a so na ble expectation of privac y , we must deter mine whether

she exhibit ed a subje ctive ex pectation of privacy and, if so, whe ther that subje ct i ve expectation is one that socie ty is willi ng to rec og nize as
rea sonable. Smith v. Maryland , 442 U.S. 735, 740, 99 S.C t. 2577, 61 L .Ed.2d 220 (1979). The latter inquiry is a question of law. Vi lla rre al v . S tate , 935 S.W .2d 134, 138 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). We beg in our ana ly sis w ith Scheine man . There , the def endant a nd a co- defe ndant wer e
arr ested a nd place d in separate interviewrooms. 77 S.W .3d at 81 1 . The c o-def endant a sked a deputy if he c ould speak a lone with the def endant. Id
. Th e de puty a g re e d, mov e d th e de fe nd ant i nto the room occ upied by

the co- defe ndant, and lef

t the two of them alone
. Id . The men the n discussed th e ir c r im in a l c o n d

u c t w h il e th e o f

f ic e r s mo n it o r e d an d r e c o r d e d th e ir c o n v e r s a ti o n. Id . The defe ndant ar g ued that the de puty ' s conduct ha d "lulled" him into believing that the c onversation was private and there by g ave him a le g itimate expectation of privac y . Id . The c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls dis a g re e d, ob se rv ingthat a los s o f p ri va c y

is a n inhe re nt i nc ide nt o f c on fi ne me nt, wh e the r i n a ja il cell or a police station interview r oom. Id . at 813. Noting there was no e vidence that the deputy had g iven the co- defe ndants any verba l assuranc e of pr ivacy , the cour t held that society

is not prepar ed to re c og nize a

le g iti mate e xpe c tatio n o f p ri va c y in a c on ve rs a tio n b e tw e e n tw o a rr e ste e s in

a c ounty law enfor ceme nt building , even if the arr estee s are the only persons pre sent and subjec tively believe that they are unobserve d. Id
. Ke nd iki an a

rgue s th a t th e fa c ts h e re are dis tin g uis ha ble . Sh e and

he r h us ba nd we re me re ly suspects-- not arre stees-- and ca me to the station voluntarily . The de tective s ’ conduct in arra ng ing the meeting , placingthe two in a private room, cl o s i n g the door, a nd knocking befor e ente ring
cre ated a n expectation of privac y . The video e quipment was not visible, nor had the police reve aledthat the individual statements had bee n rec orded.

Whil e a loss of privacy

is an inhere nt incident of conf inement, Kendikian a

nd her husba

nd
w e re not confine d ; t

h e y w e r e f r e e to le a v e w h e nth e y

p le a s e d
. T h is is a

c r it ic a l d is ti n c ti o n . We ag ree with the trial court’ s conclusion t hat t he ac tions of the detec tives cre ated a n atmosphere such that a re a so na blepe rs on

c ou ld b e lie ve sh e ha d a

n e xpe c tatio n o f p ri va c y . U nd e r t he se c ir c ums tanc e s, Kendikian had a rea sonable expectation of privac y that society is indeed pre pare d to rec og nize. See Smith v. Maryland , 442 U.S. 735, 740, 99 S.C t. 2577, 61 L .Ed.2d 220 (1979). We over rule the issue for r eview a

nd aff irm the order

of the trial c ourt below. Aug ust 28, 2009 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)