NO ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 

CAUS E NO . 12-15-00186-C R 

I N TH E 

COUR T O F APPEAL S 

TWELFT H DISTRIC T O F TEXA S 

TYLER , TEXA S 

LONNI E LYN N JOHNSO N 

Appellan t 

v s . 

T H E STAT E O F TEXAS , 

Appelle e 

Appea l i n Caus e No . 3167 5 

O n Appea l fro m th e Thir d Judicia l Distric t Cour t 

o f Anderso n County , Texa s 

BRIE F FO R APPELLAN T 

Phili p C . Fletche r 

Texa s Ba r No . 0078747 8 

8 0 0 Nort h Mallar d 

Palestine , Texa s 7580 1 

Telephon e No. : (903 ) 731-444 0 

Facsimil e No. : (903)731-447 4 

Email : fletchlaw@yahoo.co m 

ATTORNE Y FO R APPELLAN T 

ACCEPTED

12-15-00186-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

12/1/2015 10:57:34 AM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 12/1/2015 10:57:34 AM PAM ESTES Clerk
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAG E NO . 

Tabl e o f Content s 2 

Lis t o f Authoritie s 3 

Appearance s 4 

Addres s t o th e Cour t 5 

Statemen t o f th e Cas e 6 

Issue s Presente d 7 

Statemen t o f Fact s 8 

Summar y o f th e Argument , Poin t o f Erro r Numbe r On e 2 0 

Summar y o f th e Argument , Poin t o f Erro r Numbe r Tw o 2 1 

Argument , Poin t o f Erro r Numbe r On e 2 2 

Argument , Poin t o f Erro r Numbe r Tw o 2 6 

Praye r 2 8 

Certificat e o f Complianc e - Texa s Rule s o f Appellat e Procedur e 9. 4 (i) (3 ) 1 4 2 9 

Certificat e o f Servic e 3 0 
LIST OF AUTHORITIES 

CASES: PAG E NO . 

Amador V. State, 22 1 S.W.S d 66 6 (Tex.Crim.App . 2007 ) 2 2 

Guitierrez v. State, 22 1 S.W.3 d 68 0 (Tex.Crim.App . 2007 ) 2 2 

Levi V. State, 14 7 S.W.S d 54 1 (Tex . App.-Wac o 2004 , pet . re f d ) 2 3 

Miranda v. Arizona, 38 4 U.S . 436,8 6 S.Ct . 160 2 (1966 ) 2 6 

Rhode Island v. fnnis, 44 6 U.S . 291 , 10 0 S.Ct . 168 2 (1980.) . 2 7 

Rodriguez v. United States, 57 5 U.S . , 13 5 S.Ct . 160 9 (2015 ) 23, 24 

Saldivar v. State, 20 9 S.W.S d 27 5 (Tex . App-For t Wort h 2006 , n o pet. ) (mem . op. ) 23 

WolfV. State, 91 7 S.W.2 d 27 0 (Tex.Crim.App . 1996 ) 2 6 

STATUTES: PAG E NO . 

Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e Articl e 15.2 1 2 6 

Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e Articl e 15.2 2 2 6 

Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e Articl e 38.2 1 2 6 

Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e Articl e 38.2 2 2 6 

Texa s Constitution , Articl e I Sec . 19 , Texa s Du e Proces s Claus e 2 6 

Unite d State s Constitution , Fift h Amendmen t 2 6 

Unite d State s Constitution , Fourt h Amendmen t 2 2 
APPEARANCES 

Pursuan t t o Rule 38.1 (a), Texa s Rule s o f Appellat e Procedure , Appellat e provide s 

a complet e lis t o f al l partie s an d name s an d addresse s o f Counsel : 

Tria l Defendant : LONNI E LYN N JOHNSO N 

Tria l Defendant' s Counsel : 

Tria l State' s Counsel : 

Appellant : 

Appellant' s Counsel : 

Appellee' s Counsel : 

JEF F HERRINGTO N 

Attorne y a t La w 

6 1 7 Eas t Lac y Street , Suit e 10 6 

Palestine , Texa s 75801-296 5 

Telephone : (903)723-192 3 

Facsimile : (903 ) 723-026 9 

STEV E EVAN S 

Attorne y a t La w 

6 1 7 Eas t Lac y Street , Suit e 10 6 

Palestine , Texa s 75801-296 5 

Telephone : (903)723-192 3 

Facsimile : (903 ) 723-026 9 

ALLYSO N MITCHEL L & SCOT T HOLDE N 

Anderso n Count y Distric t Attorne y 

5 0 0 Nort h Churc h Stree t 

Palestine , Texa s 7580 1 

Telephone:(903 ) 723-740 0 

Facsimile : (903)723-781 8 

LONNI E LYN N JOHNSO N 

PHILI P C . FLETCHE R 

Attorne y a t La w 

8 0 0 Nort h Mallar d Stree t 

Palestine , Texa s 7580 1 

Telephone : (903 ) 731-444 0 

Facsimile : (903)731-447 4 

ALLYSO N MITCHEL L & SCOT T HOLDE N 

Anderso n Count y Distric t Attorney' s Offic e 

5 0 0 Nort h Churc h Stree t 

Palestine , Texa s 7580 1 

Telephone:(903 ) 723-740 0 

Facsimile : (903 ) 723-781 8 
CAUS E NO . 12-15-00186-C R 

I N TH E 

COUR T O F APPEAL S 

TWELFT H DISTRIC T O F TEXA S 

TYLER , TEXA S 

LONNI E LYN N JOHNSO N 

Appellan t 

v s . 

T H E STAT E O F TEXAS , 

Appelle e 

Appea l i n Caus e No . 3167 5 

O n Appea l fro m th e Thir d Judicia l Distric t Cour t 

o f Anderso n County , Texa s 

BRIE F FO R APPELLAN T 

T O TH E HONORABL E JUSTICE S O F TH E COUR T O F APPEALS : 

COME S NOW , LONNI E LYN N JOHNSON , hereinafte r referre d t o a s Appellant , an d 

submit s thi s Brie f i n suppor t o f th e Appellant' s reques t tha t judgmen t rendere d i n Caus e 

Numbe r 3167 5 b e reversed . 

5 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

Appellan t wa s indicte d i n Caus e Numbe r 3167 5 wit h th e offense s o f Felo n i n 

Possessio n o f a Firearm , Felo n i n Possessio n o f Bod y Armo r an d Impersonatin g a Publi c 

Servant . Thi s offens e wa s allege d t o hav e occurre d o n Januar y 12 , 2014 , i n Anderso n 

County , Texas . Appellan t ple d no t guilt y t o thes e charges . O n Jun e 29 , 2015 , Appellan t 

change d hi s ple a t o guilt y an d wa s sentence d t o thirt y (30 ) year s i n th e Texa s Departmen t 

o f Crimina l Justic e - Institutiona l Division . Th e Cour t certifie d Appellant' s righ t t o appea l 

a n y pre-tria l motions . O n Jul y 21 , 2015 , Appellan t timel y gav e hi s Notic e o f Appea l t o thi s 

Honorabl e Court . Appellan t no w timel y file s thi s Brie f i n suppor t o f th e Appellant' s reques t 

tha t th e judgmen t rendere d i n Caus e Numbe r 3167 5 b e reversed . 

6 
ISSUES PRESENTED 

Point of Error Number One; Th e Tria l Cour t abuse d it s discretio n i n allowin g th e 

admissio n o f evidenc e i n violatio n o f Appellant' s Fourt h Amendmen t righ t agains t 

unreasonabl e searche s an d seizures . 

Point of Error Number Two: Th e Tria l Cour t abuse d it s discretio n i n allowin g th e 

admissio n o f certai n statement s o f Appellan t tha t wer e mad e whil e Appellan t wa s i n 

custod y i n violatio n o f hi s Fift h Amendmen t righ t agains t self-incrimination . 

7 
STATEMENT OF FACTS 

O n Octobe r 3 , 201 4 th e Cour t hear d Appellant' s Motio n t o Suppress . Thi s wa s 

reporte d b y Brand i Ra y i n Volum e 1 . Th e Stat e calle d it s firs t witness , Ro b Sadowski , a 

Texa s Gam e Warden s an d Texa s Park s an d Wildlif e Departmen t officer . Office r Sadowsk i 

h a d receive d a cal l fro m th e Anderso n Count y Sheriff s Offic e tha t a vehicl e wa s stuc k i n 

t h e san d a t Gu s Engelin g Wildlif e Managemen t Area , a publi c area . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 5-6 ) 

Office r Sadowsk i explaine d tha t yo u ar e allowe d t o ente r th e propert y wit h a vali d permit . 

Ther e ar e tw o entr y point s tha t ar e gated . A pave d roa d allow s throug h traffi c whe n it i s 

opened . Office r Sadowsk i wa s dispatche d t o Lonni e Johnson , wh o wa s a t th e en d o f a dir t 

roa d tha t ende d a t th e catfis h cree k bottom . Office r Sadowsk i arrive d wit h Office r Dann y 

Kesse l wh o wa s i n hi s ow n patro l vehicle . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 6-8 ) 

Upo n arrivin g an d meetin g Mr . Lonni e Johnson , Office r Sadowsk i aske d fo r 

Appellanf s driver' s licens e an d ra n it throug h th e Anderso n Count y Sheriff s Office . It 

cam e bac k tha t Appellan t wa s a convicte d felon . Office r Sadowsk i the n aske d Appellan t 

f o r hi s entr y permit . Appellan t wa s unabl e t o produc e a vali d permit . A t tha t time . Office r 

Sadowsk i aske d t o searc h Appellant' s vehicl e an d wa s give n consent . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pg . 

9 ) Office r Sadowsk i bega n searchin g Appellanf s vehicl e an d foun d camouflag e clothing , 

a blac k duffl e bag , a fishin g pole , an d othe r miscellaneou s outdoo r equipment ; Office r 

Kesse l foun d prescriptio n medication . Office r Sadowsk i aske d wha t wa s i n th e duffl e ba g 

a n d coul d h e searc h it. Appellan t state d it wa s hi s wor k stuf f an d gav e Office r Sadowsk i 

permissio n t o searc h th e bag . Office r Sadowsk i locate d a M4-typ e assaul t rifle , a typ e 3 A 

poin t blan k bod y armor , a militar y styl e figh t jacket , on e long-sleeve d cotto n T-shir t tha t 

sai d "Police " o n it, on e short-sleeve d T-shir t tha t sai d "Police " o n it, a 2 2 Ne w Englan d 

8 
firearm s revolver , an d a 3 8 Ross i revolver , alon g wit h miscellaneou s othe r tactica l polic e 

equipment . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 10-12 ) 

Office r Sadowsk i the n place d Appellan t i n handcuffs . A t tha t time , Appellan t state d 

tha t h e wa s a n undercove r office r fo r th e Tarran t Count y Sheriff' s Office . Office r Sadowsk i 

continue d t o searc h th e vehicl e an d foun d 9-millimete r hidde n i n th e compartmen t i n th e 

trunk , a whit e chemica l typ e sui t alon g wit h rubbe r gloves , an d sharpenin g ston e fo r a 

knife . Appellan t continue d t o stat e tha t h e worke d undercove r fo r th e Tarran t Count y 

Sheriff' s Offic e an d tha t h e worke d unde r Captai n Bailey . Office r Sadowsk i ha d Anderso n 

Count y Sheriff' s Offic e contac t Tarran t Count y Sheriff' s Offic e an d wa s advise d tha t ther e 

w a s no t a Captai n Baile y tha t worke d fo r them . Th e nex t mornin g Office r Sadowsk i 

receive d a cal l fro m hi s gam e warde n lieutenan t wh o i s i n Tarran t County , an d hi s brothe r 

wok s fo r Tarran t Count y Sheriff' s Office , an d h e wa s unabl e t o confir m tha t ther e wa s a 

Captai n Baile y tha t eve r wa s employe d b y th e Tarran t Count y Sheriff' s Office . (R.R . Vol . 

1 , Pgs . 12-13 ) Appellan t state d tha t h e receive d th e equipmen t fro m th e Tarran t Count y 

SherifT s Offic e t o assis t i n raids . Office r Sadowsk i aske d Appellan t fo r hi s PI D number , 

a numbe r tha t i s give n t o al l peac e officers , an d Appellan t state d h e di d no t hav e one . A t 

tha t tim e Office r Kesse l place d Appellan t unde r arres t an d rea d hi m hi s Mirand a right s i n 

t h e patro l car . Appellant' s cel l phon e wa s seize d an d a searc h warran t wa s issue d t o nex t 

mornin g t o searc h hi s cel l phone . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 13-14 ) 

Durin g cros s examination , Office r Sadowsk i state d tha t th e entr y gat e wa s 

unmanne d an d th e rule s an d regulation s wer e poste d a t th e entr y station . H e wa s aske d 

if th e permit s tha t ar e require d wer e availabl e a t th e entr y point . Office r Sadowsk i state d 

9 
tha t the y ar e availabl e wher e yo u purchas e huntin g an d fishin g licenses . H e furthe r state d 

tha t it i s a clas s C misdemeano r fin e onl y offense . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 14-15 ) 

Office r Sadowsk i wa s unabl e t o giv e a n exac t tim e o f th e cal l becaus e h e wa s ou t 

o f servic e whe n h e receive d th e call . H e wa s awar e tha t Appellan t contacte d Anderso n 

Count y Sheriff s Offic e himsel f fo r assistance . Office r Kesse l spok e wit h Appellan t o n hi s 

phon e t o ge t hi s exac t location . Accordin g t o th e 91 1 cal l made , Appellan t calle d a t 

approximatel y 5:0 0 p.m. . Office r Sadowsk i state d tha t h e an d hi s partner . Office r Kessel , 

h a d t o g o t o Moun t Pleasan t t o pic k u p a truck . H e state d h e receive d th e cal l o n th e wa y 

back . Office r Sadowsk i di d no t kno w exactl y wha t tim e the y arrive d a t th e wildlif e area , 

however , h e agree d wit h hi s partner' s repor t tha t it wa s approximatel y 6:0 0 p.m. . Office r 

Sadowsk i arrive d wit h Office r Kesse l an d mad e contactwit h Appellan t an d hi s wife . (R.R . 

Vol . 1 , Pgs . 15-17 ) 

Office r Sadowsk i state d tha t it wa s dar k whe n the y arrived . H e fel t lik e it wa s 

suspiciou s tha t a newe r mode l Mercede s Ben z wa s stuc k i n th e san d i n a n ou t o f reac h 

place . H e state d tha t th e propert y i s use d primaril y t o hunt , however , a perso n coul d ge t 

a limite d us e permi t t o jus t enjo y natur e o r bir d watch . Office r Sadowsk i state d tha t th e 

reaso n h e fel t Appellan t action s wer e suspiciou s wa s becaus e h e mad e a statemen t abou t 

thi s bein g th e secon d tim e h e ha d gotte n stuc k i n th e pas t fe w days . Thi s statemen t wa s 

t h e reaso n Office r Sadowsk i though t th e situatio n wa s suspicious . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 18 -

2 0 ) Onc e again . Office r Sadowsk i testifie d tha t h e aske d Appellan t fo r hi s driver' s licens e 

upo n arrivin g a t th e wildlif e area . H e als o state d tha t Appellant , a t thi s time , wa s no t unde r 

arres t an d Office r Sadowsk i di d no t hav e a searc h warrant . H e ra n hi s licens e wit h th e 

Anderso n Count y Sheriff s Offic e an d wa s notifie d tha t Appellan t wa s a convicte d felon . 

1 0 
Office r Sadowsk i admitte d tha t it wa s no t agains t th e la w fo r Appellan t t o b e i n th e wildlif e 

area , bu t it wa s suspiciou s t o Office r Sadowsk i tha t h e wa s a convicte d felon . Tha t i s wh y 

h e aske d t o searc h th e vehicle . Office r Sadowsk i aske d wh y the y wer e i n th e wildlif e are a 

a n d Appellan t state d the y wer e jus t drivin g through , however , h e wa s o n a dea d en d road . 

T h e office r di d no t as k Appellan t if thi s wa s hi s firs t tim e i n th e wildlif e area . Durin g th e 

approximatel y thirt y minute s prio r t o Office r Sadowsk i askin g t o searc h Appellant' s vehicle , 

bot h officer s ha d pushe d th e ca r ou t o f th e san d an d it wa s n o longe r stuck . (R.R . Vol . 1 , 

Pgs . 20-21 ) 

Office r Sadowsk i testifie d tha t h e di d no t issu e Appellan t a citatio n fo r bein g i n th e 

wildlif e are a withou t a permit . A warnin g wa s issue d t o Appellan t prio r t o Office r Sadowsk i 

askin g t o searc h hi s vehicle . H e admitte d t o doin g a visua l searc h o f th e vehicl e bu t ther e 

wer e severa l thing s i n th e bac k sea t an d h e wante d t o loo k closer . Office r Sadowsk i aske d 

Appellant , "Woul d yo u min d if I looke d i n you r car? " Accordin g t o Office r Sadowski , 

Appellan t said , "G o ahead. " Office r Sadowsk i testifie d tha t the y bega n th e searc h i n th e 

vehicl e an d Office r Kesse l locate d prescriptio n medication . The n the y move d t o th e trun k 

o f th e vehicle . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 22-23 ) Onc e i n th e trunk . Office r Sadowsk i foun d som e 

camouflag e clothin g tha t h e though t wa s suspiciou s an d a blac k duffl e bag . H e aske d t o 

loo k i n th e duffl e ba g an d accordin g t o Office r Sadowski , Appellan t said , "G o ahead. " 

Onc e Office r Sadowsk i opene d th e duffe l bag , h e foun d a M 4 typ e assaul t rifle , late r t o b e 

identifie d a s a n Airsof t rifle , a plasti c to y gun . H e als o locate d som e bod y armo r an d 

place d Appellan t i n handcuffs , detainin g him . Onc e Office r Sadowsk i detaine d Appellant , 

h e state d h e wa s a n undercove r peac e office r s o Office r Sadowsk i starte d askin g 

questions . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 24-26 ) 

1 1 
Office r Sadowsk i testifie d tha t hi s vehicl e doe s no t hav e an y vide o o r audi o 

recording . H e di d no t hav e a persona l recordin g devic e either . Onc e detained , Office r 

Sadowsk i state d tha t h e bega n questionin g Appellan t abou t th e guns . Office r Sadowsk i 

admitte d tha t h e ha s no t rea d Appellan t hi s Mirand a right s a t thi s time . A t approximatel y 

8:0 0 p.m. , onc e Appellan t wa s place d i n th e patro l car , Office r Kesse l place d Appellan t 

unde r arres t an d read s hi m hi s Mirand a rights . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 26-27 ) Office r Sadowsk i 

reviewe d a n exhibi t an d testifie d tha t it i s a book-i n shee t fro m th e Anderso n Count y 

Sheriff' s Office . It showe d contac t mad e a t 8:0 0 p.m . an d Office r Sadowsk i believe s tha t 

i s th e tim e Appellan t wa s place d unde r arrest . Additionally , Office r Sadowsk i testifie d tha t 

h e searche d th e passenge r compartmen t firs t an d the n th e trunk . However , afte r reviewin g 

h i s report , h e believe d hi s memor y ha d mistake n hi m an d i n fac t h e searche d th e trun k firs t 

a n d th e passenge r portio n second , (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 27-28 ) 

Office r Sadowsk i state d tha t anythin g sai d betwee n Appellan t an d himsel f wa s no t 

recorded , th e onl y evidenc e o f anythin g sai d wa s i n Office r Sadowski' s report . Appellan t 

d i d no t writ e a statement . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pg . 29 ) 

T h e stat e aske d Office r Sadowsk i if it wa s unusua l fo r peopl e t o illegall y hun t i n tha t 

area , an d h e replied , "I t happen s o n a regula r basis. " H e als o state d tha t it i s no t unusua l 

t o catc h peopl e ou t ther e fishin g withou t th e limite d us e permit . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pg . 30 ) O n 

re-cros s examination . Office r Sadowsk i clarifie d tha t h e di d no t ge t writte n consen t fro m 

Appellan t t o searc h hi s vehicle , onl y verbal . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pg . 31 ) 

T h e defens e calle d Ms . Sharmi n Jaham , Appellant' s ex-wife . Ms . Jaha m testifie d 

tha t sh e ha s a master' s degre e i n busines s managemen t fro m th e Universit y o f 

Bangladesh . Sh e state d sh e ha s live d her e fo r man y years , ha s famil y here , an d a so n 

1 2 
tha t attend s th e Universit y o f Texas . Ms . Jaha m advise d tha t a t th e tim e o f th e arres t sh e 

w a s wit h Lonni e Johnso n a t th e wildlif e area . Ms . Jaha m testifie s tha t o n th e da y Appellan t 

w a s arrested , the y wer e o n thei r wa y bac k t o Dalla s fro m Lufki n an d ha d jus t stoppe d a t 

a pai d par k t o enjo y th e da y an d tak e som e pictures . Sh e an d Appellan t wer e bac k o n th e 

roa d t o Dallas ; sh e sa w th e wildlif e are a an d wante d t o stop , s o h e too k he r there . Ms . 

Jaha m state d tha t the y d o thi s often , almos t ever y weekend . Sh e wante d t o se e a n 

alligato r s o the y pulle d int o th e wildlif e area . Sh e sai d the y though t it wa s a pai d par k to o 

b u t coul d no t fin d anyon e t o pay . Ther e wa s n o on e a t th e entr y gate . The y coul d no t fin d 

anyon e t o pa y o r instruction s fo r a permit . The y di d fin d a registratio n card , fille d it out , an d 

place d on e hal f i n th e bo x an d th e othe r hal f i n th e dash , an d continue d t o th e cree k area . 

M s . Jaha m state d the y arrive d a t aroun d 4:15-4:3 0 p.m . an d too k som e pictures . Onc e 

the y wer e read y t o leave , the y realize d th e ca r wa s stuck . Sh e state d tha t he r husband . 

Appellant , calle d 9-1- 1 a t approximatel y 4:40-4:4 5 p.m . an d the y waite d ove r a n hou r fo r 

assistance . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 32-37 ) 

M s . Jaha m state d tha t onc e th e officer s arrived , the y aske d fo r Appellant' s driver' s 

licens e an d insuranc e an d he r driver' s license . Sh e state d tha t Office r Sadowsk i too k th e 

informatio n t o hi s patro l ca r an d cam e bac k wit h a flashligh t an d wa s searchin g th e car . 

S h e testifie d tha t a t tha t tim e Office r Kesse l pulle d Appellant' s vehicl e ou t wit h hi s truc k 

a n d state d the y neede d a permi t t o b e i n tha t area . Ms . Jaha m clarifie d tha t th e tw o 

officer s di d no t pus h th e vehicl e ou t o f th e sand , bu t tha t Office r Kesse l pulle d it ou t wit h 

h i s patro l truc k an d som e rop e o r cabl e attache d t o th e vehicle . Sh e state d tha t onc e th e 

c a r wa s unstuc k Office r Sadowsk i startin g searchin g th e vehicl e wit h hi s flashligh t throug h 

t h e windows . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 37-38 ) Ms . Jaha m state d tha t Office r Sadowsk i sa w a 

1 3 
bottl e an d aske d wha t wa s i n it an d the y tol d hi m it wa s a protei n drink . H e aske d t o se e 

it. So , Appellan t hande d it t o him , an d h e smelle d it an d hande d it back . Ms . Jaha m the n 

state d tha t h e starte d askin g question s abou t thei r clothe s an d persona l hygien e products . 

S h e sai d h e wa s ver y suspiciou s fro m th e beginning . Sh e the n testifie d tha t Office r 

Sadowsk i too k he r t o th e sid e an d aske d he r ho w lon g sh e ha s know n Appellant . Sh e 

state d tha t a t tha t tim e sh e an d Appellan t ha d bee n marrie d fro m thre e an d hal f months . 

M s . Jaha m state d tha t Office r Sadowsk i turn s t o Appellan t an d aske d hi m questions . Sh e 

hear d hi m as k Appellan t if h e ha d an y firearm s wit h him . Th e nex t thin g sh e hear d Office r 

Sadowsk i sa y is , "Ope n you r trunk. " (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pg . 39 ) 

M s . Jaha m state d tha t Office r Kesse l explaine d t o the m the y neede d a permit ; bu t 

sinc e the y di d no t kno w abou t th e requirement , h e woul d giv e the m a warning . However , 

if the y wante d t o com e back , the y woul d nee d a permit . Sh e an d Appellan t aske d hi m 

wher e t o ge t one , an d h e advise d Wal-Mar t o r som e plac e lik e that . Ms . Jaha m testifie d 

tha t Office r Sadowsk i neve r aske d Appellan t o r hersel f permissio n t o searc h thei r vehicle , 

instea d h e ordere d Appellan t t o ope n th e trunk . Ms . Jaha m furthe r testifie d tha t onc e 

Office r Sadowsk i starte d searchin g th e vehicle . Office r Kesse l too k he r awa y fro m th e 

vehicl e an d ha d he r stan d b y th e patro l car . Sh e wa s no t abl e t o reall y se e wha t wa s 

takin g place , however , sh e sa w Office r Sadowsk i pres s Appellan t u p agains t th e vehicl e 

a n d believe d tha t i s whe n h e wa s place d i n handcuffs . A t tha t time , the y searche d he r to o 

b u t foun d nothing . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 40-41 ) 

O n cros s examination , Ms . Jaha m state d tha t sh e i s n o longe r marrie d t o Appellant . 

However , a t th e time , sh e wa s marrie d t o him . Sh e late r file d fo r a n annulmen t fo r 

citizenshi p purposes . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pg . 42 ) Ms . Jaha m state d tha t onc e Office r Sadowsk i 

1 4 
ordere d he r husban d t o ope n th e trunk , Office r Kesse l aske d he r t o com e stan d b y hi s 

patro l vehicle . Ms . Jaha m testifie s tha t Appellan t ha d tol d he r tha t h e worke d fo r Tarran t 

Count y Sheriff' s Offic e a s a n undercove r informant . Sh e state d tha t sh e kne w h e wa s a 

convicte d felon . Whe n aske d abou t thei r marriage , Ms . Jaha m advise d the y wer e tryin g 

t o bu y a hous e an d star t thei r ne w lif e together . Th e Stat e aske d Ms . Jaha m if th e onl y 

thin g Office r Sadowsk i didn' t tel l th e trut h abou t wa s orderin g Appellan t t o ope n th e trunk , 

a n d sh e answere d h e als o di d no t tel l th e trut h abou t th e sign s regardin g th e permit . Sh e 

continue d t o sa y tha t mayb e h e wa s confused , bu t sh e wa s not . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 44-47 ) 

Lonni e Johnso n i s calle d nex t t o testify . Appellan t state d tha t h e an d hi s wif e ha d 

bee n o n a weeken d getawa y an d the y stoppe d a t Gu s Engeling . Appellan t sai d tha t the y 

jus t wen t i n mayb e a mil e an d a half , an d too k som e pictures . H e state d the y stoppe d a t 

t h e entr y gate , fille d ou t a registratio n card , an d wrot e the y wer e ther e fo r bir d an d wildlif e 

watching . The y droppe d th e perforate d car d i n th e box , kep t th e othe r half , an d place d it 

i n th e dashboar d are a o f thei r vehicle . Appellan t state d the y looke d fo r sign s regardin g 

fees , etc . becaus e the y ha d jus t visite d Ratclif f Park , wher e a fe e i s charged . H e state d 

the y di d no t se e anythin g indicatin g a fee , s o the y continue d int o th e par k t o th e Catfis h 

Cree k are a t o tak e com e pictures . Appellan t sai d h e notice d th e loos e san d an d h e wa s 

afrai d tha t th e gat e woul d clos e a t dus k s o the y turne d aroun d an d go t stuck . Onc e h e 

notice d the y wer e stuck , h e calle d 9-1- 1 t o ge t assistanc e wit h a wrecke r service . (R.R . 

Vol . 1 , Pgs . 48-49 ) 

Appellan t testifie d tha t h e calle d 9-1- 1 a t approximatel y 4:45-5:0 0 p.m. . H e state d 

tha t h e gav e the m hi s cel l phon e numbe r a s a contac t an d th e coordinate s o f thei r location . 

1 5 
Appellan t sai d tha t th e office r calle d an d aske d wha t sid e o f th e roa d the y wer e on . H e 

state d tha t tw o officer s showe d u p i n tw o separat e vehicles , Gam e Warde n Ro b Sadowsk i 

a n d Gam e Warde n Dann y Kessel . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pg . 50 ) Whe n th e officer s arrived , 

Appellan t state d tha t h e walke d u p t o them , introduce d himself , an d kin d o f laughe d abou t 

t h e situatio n h e go t himsel f into . Appellan t state d tha t whil e h e an d Office r Kesse l wer e 

evaluatin g th e situation . Office r Sadowsk i aske d fo r hi s driver' s licens e an d proo f o f 

insuranc e an d Ms . Jaham' s identification . Appellan t an d Office r Kesse l wen t bac k t o 

workin g o n gettin g th e chai n hooke d int o th e fron t o f th e vehicle . Office r Sadowsk i 

approache d an d aske d Appellan t wha t the y wer e doin g there . Appellan t testifie d tha t 

Office r Kesse l ha d no t pulle d th e ca r ou t wit h a chai n ye t whe n Office r Sadowsk i aske d 

w h y the y wer e there . Appellan t advise d hi m tha t the y wer e ther e t o tak e picture s an d 

enjo y th e scenery . Appellan t state d tha t h e neve r receive d a citatio n fo r no t havin g a 

permit . H e sai d tha t onc e Office r Kesse l sai d anythin g t o the m abou t it, the y explaine d tha t 

the y di d no t se e anythin g abou t havin g a permi t an d ha d fille d ou t th e registratio n car d a t 

t h e entr y gate . Appellan t state d tha t a s Office r Kesse l wa s heade d bac k t o hi s vehicl e t o 

pul l th e ca r out . Office r Sadowsk i bega n shinin g hi s flashligh t i n thei r vehicl e lookin g 

around . Office r Sadowsk i aske d Appellan t abou t th e protei n drin k mi x i n th e bac k sea t o f 

t h e floorboar d o f th e vehicle . Appellan t testifie d tha t the n h e go t i n hi s vehicl e t o assis t 

Office r Kesse l i n pullin g hi s vehicl e ou t o f th e sand . Appellan t state s tha t onc e h e go t ou t 

o f hi s vehicle , Office r Sadowsk i aske d hi m if h e ha d an y firearm s i n th e ca r an d ordere d 

h i m t o ope n hi s trunk , statin g h e wante d t o mak e sur e h e di d no t hav e a dea d dee r o r 

turke y i n th e trunk . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 50-53 ) 

1 6 
Appellan t testifie d tha t h e wa s neve r aske d t o searc h hi s vehicl e an d tha t h e 

interprete d wha t Office r Sadowsk i sai d a s a direc t order . Appellan t furthe r explaine d tha t 

h e fel t lik e h e ha d t o compl y becaus e it wa s a la w enforcemen t officer . A t tha t time , 

Appellan t opene d th e trunk . H e sai d tha t Office r Sadowsk i starte d rummagin g throug h 

thei r weeken d belonging s i n th e trunk . Appellan t state d a t tha t tim e Office r Kesse l shine d 

h i s flashligh t i n th e trun k an d aske d wha t wa s i n th e duffl e bag . Appellan t sai d tha t h e wa s 

aske d wha t wa s i n th e duffl e ba g an d h e replied , "Clothes. " Office r Sadowsk i too k th e ba g 

o u t o f th e vehicl e an d opene d it. Appellan t state d h e wa s no t aske d permissio n t o loo k i n 

t h e duffl e bag , an d h e di d no t giv e permission . Appellan t testifie d tha t onc e Office r 

Sadowsk i looke d a t th e content s o f th e ba g h e tol d Appellan t h e wa s unde r arrest . 

Appellan t state d tha t h e wa s place d i n handcuff s bu t wa s no t rea d hi s Mirand a rights . 

However , h e di d no t fee l lik e h e coul d leave . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 54-56 ) 

Appellan t testifie d tha t h e wa s no t awar e o f an y audi o o r vide o recording s an d h e 

h a d no t see n anythin g i n writin g tha t lea d hi m t o believ e ther e wer e an y recordings . A t tha t 

time , Appellan t state d tha t Office r Sadowsk i bega n hi s questioning . Appellan t clarifie d tha t 

h e neve r gav e consen t fo r th e officer s t o searc h hi s vehicl e an d wa s neve r presente d wit h 

a searc h o r arres t warrant . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 56-57 ) 

Durin g cross-examination . Appellan t admitte d tha t h e ha s a felon y recor d an d i s o n 

parol e unti l 2039 . Appellan t admitte d tha t t o a n office r it ma y loo k suspiciou s tha t a 

Mercede s stuc k i n th e sand s o f a rive r bottom , however , ther e wa s nothin g suspiciou s an d 

the y wer e no t actin g suspicious . Appellan t state d tha t whe n th e office r aske d abou t th e 

dea d dee r o r turke y i n th e trunk , h e though t the y wer e kin d o f joking . The y wer e no t 

dresse d fo r hunting , an d the y looke d lik e a coupl e o r famil y ou t enjoyin g th e wildlif e area . 

1 7 
Appellan t state d agai n tha t h e wa s aske d i f ther e wer e an y firearm s i n th e vehicle , an d tha t 

h e wa s no t aske d fo r consen t t o searc h th e vehicle . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 57-58 ) 

Appellan t clarifie d tha t whe n Office r Sadowsk i aske d hi m abou t th e camouflag e 

clothes , h e di d no t reply . Appellan t confirme d tha t ther e wa s a fishin g pol e i n th e car , an d 

tha t the y ha d gotte n stuc k a mont h prio r i n Trinit y Count y sightseeing . Appellan t state d 

tha t h e neve r tol d th e officer s h e wa s a n undercove r officer . H e sai d h e tol d the m h e wa s 

a cover t confidentia l informant . Appellan t clarifie d tha t h e woul d no t clai m t o b e employe d 

b y Tarran t Count y Sheriff' s Departmen t whe n h e kne w tha t coul d b e verified . Appellan t 

state d the y aske d hi m wh o hi s handle r was , an d h e replie d Captai n Ja y Bailey . (R.R . Vol . 

1 , Pgs . 59-61 ) 

A t th e conclusio n o f th e hearing , th e Cour t denie d Appellant' s motio n t o suppres s 

a n d signe d a n orde r indicatin g th e same . (C.R . Pag e 47 ) 

O n Marc h 2 , 2015 , a jur y wa s selecte d i n thi s matter . Appellan t wa s proceedin g pr o 

s e i n thi s matter . Afte r jur y selection , th e tria l cour t allowe d Appellan t t o revisi t th e portio n 

o f hi s motio n t o suppres s relatin g t o hi s ora l statement s mad e whil e Appellan t wa s bein g 

detained . Appellan t fel t tha t th e cour t ha d neve r rule d o n tha t portio n o f th e motion . 

Office r Sadowsk i testifie d a t thi s hearin g an d basicall y reiterate d hi s testimon y fro m th e 

previou s hearing . A t th e conclusio n o f hi s testimony , Appellan t file d a motio n t o hav e 

counse l appointed . Th e Cour t di d no t actuall y rul e o n th e motio n t o suppress , bu t state d 

tha t th e onl y reaso n Appellan t wante d counse l agai n wa s becaus e h e ha d rule d agains t 

Appellant . A t th e conclusio n o f thi s hearin g th e cour t recesse d unti l th e followin g day . 

(Nanc y Adam' s R.R . Vol . 9 ) 

1 8 
O n Marc h 3 , 2015 , th e cour t reconvened . Th e cour t declare d a mistria l an d 

appointe d Appellan t counse l afte r Appellan t aske d t o hav e counse l appointe d again . Th e 

cour t di d no t rul e o n th e motio n t o suppres s a t thi s time , bu t state d tha t h e woul d allo w 

appointe d counse l t o reargu e it. (Nanc y Adam' s R.R . Vol . 11 ) 

1 9 
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT - POINT OF ERROR ONE 

T h e Tria l Cour t abuse d It s discretio n i n allowin g th e admissio n o f evidenc e i n 

violatio n o f Appellant' s Fourt h Amendmen t righ t agains t unreasonabl e searche s an d 

seizures . 

T h e Suprem e Cour t o f th e Unite d State s o f Americ a ha s recentl y rule d withou t 

reasonabl e suspicio n th e extensio n o f a traffi c sto p beyon d th e tim e neede d t o complet e 

t h e sto p violate s th e Fourt h Amendmen t righ t agains t unreasonabl e seizures . 

I n th e cas e a t bar , th e Cour t shoul d fin d tha t n o consen t wa s given . Th e Cour t coul d 

choos e t o believ e th e testimon y o f th e tw o witnesse s tha t contradicte d th e officer' s 

testimon y concernin g th e allege d consent . Therefor e th e searc h wa s illega l becaus e th e 

office r lacke d probabl e caus e t o conduc t a search . 

If th e Cour t believe s tha t consen t wa s given , it shoul d fin d tha t consen t wa s give n 

i n violatio n o f th e Fourt h Amendmen t righ t agains t unreasonabl e searc h an d seizur e i n tha t 

consen t wa s obtaine d afte r th e tim e neede d t o complet e th e Initia l sto p o r Interventio n 

withou t reasonabl e suspicion . 

T h e searc h o f Appellant' s vehicl e reveale d th e gun s an d bod y armo r whic h wer e th e 

basi s o f th e charge s o f possessio n o f a firear m an d bod y armo r b y a felon . A s a resul t o f 

t h e court' s erroneou s ruling . Appellan t wa s force d t o ple a whe n face d wit h th e 

overwhelmin g fea r o f a lif e sentence . 

T h e Tria l Cour t abuse d it s discretio n b y allowin g th e admissio n o f evidenc e i n 

violatio n o f Appellant' s Fourt h Amendmen t righ t agains t illega l searche s an d seizures . A s 

a result , thi s Cour t mus t revers e th e judgment . 

2 0 
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT - POINT OF ERROR TWO 

T h e Tria l Cour t abuse d it s discretio n i n allowin g th e admissio n o f certai n statement s 

o f Appellan t tha t wer e mad e whil e Appellan t wa s i n custod y i n violatio n o f hi s Fift h 

Amendmen t righ t agains t self-incrimination . 

A n admissio n o r a statemen t inculpatin g a declaran t bu t no t on e whic h 

acknowledge s guil t mad e unde r custodia l interrogatio n b y a n agen t o f th e Stat e i s 

presume d t o b e coerce d an d involuntar y an d i n violatio n o f a person' s Fift h Amendmen t 

righ t agains t self-incriminatio n unles s Miranda warning s ar e given . 

I n th e presen t case , Appellan t wa s i n custod y an d wa s th e subjec t o f interrogation . 

T h e warning s require d b y Mirand a an d Th e Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e wer e neve r 

given . Ever y statemen t mad e b y Appellan t a t th e scen e afte r h e wa s place d i n restraint s 

i n respons e t o th e interrogatorie s o f th e office r ar e inadmissibl e an d shoul d hav e bee n 

exclude d b y th e Tria l Court . Th e Tria l Cour t abuse d it s discretio n b y allowin g th e admissio n 

o f evidenc e i n violatio n o f Appellant' s Fift h Amendmen t righ t agains t self-incrimination . A s 

a resul t o f th e denia l o f hi s motio n t o suppress , Appellan t wa s face d wit h th e introductio n 

o f thi s evidenc e whic h wa s th e onl y evidenc e th e Stat e ha d i n suppor t o f th e Impersonatin g 

a Publi c Servan t charge . Face d wit h th e prospec t o f a possibl e lif e sentence . Appellan t 

chos e t o plea . A s a result , thi s Cour t mus t revers e th e judgment . 

2 1 
ARGUMENT 

POINT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE 

T h e Tria l Cour t abuse d it s discretio n i n allowin g th e admissio n o f evidenc e i n 

violatio n o f Appellant' s Fourt h Amendmen t righ t agains t unreasonabl e searche s an d 

seizures . 

A rulin g o n a tria l court' s motio n t o suppres s evidenc e base d upo n a n unreasonabl e 

searc h an d seizur e i n violatio n o f th e Fourt h Amendmen t o f th e Unite d State s Constitutio n 

i s reviewe d unde r a bifurcate d standar d o f review . Amador v. State, 22 1 S.W.S d 666,67 3 

(Tex.Crim.App . 2007) . Almos t tota l deferenc e i s give n t o a tria l court' s rulin g o n question s 

o f fac t tha t involv e a n evaluatio n o f th e credibilit y an d demeano r o f th e witnesses , bu t a 

tria l court' s rulin g o n question s o f fac t tha t d o no t involv e a n evaluatio n o f th e credibilit y an d 

demeano r o f th e witnesse s ar e reviewe d d e novo . Id. a t 673 . Th e Fourt h Amendmen t o f 

t h e Unite d State s Constitutio n protect s agains t unreasonabl e searche s an d seizure s b y 

governmen t officials . T o suppres s evidenc e obtaine d i n a n allege d violatio n o f th e Fourt h 

Amendment , a defendan t bear s th e initia l burde n o f producin g evidenc e tha t rebut s th e 

presumptio n o f prope r polic e conduct . Id. a t 672 . Thi s burde n i s satisfie d whe n it i s 

establishe d tha t a searc h o r seizur e occurre d withou t a warrant . Id. a t 672 . If a defendan t 

establishe s thi s fact , th e burde n shift s t o th e Stat e t o prov e tha t th e searc h o r seizur e wa s 

reasonable , /d . a t 672-673 . 

A warrantles s searc h o r seizur e ma y b e foun d t o b e reasonabl e i f a defendan t 

voluntaril y consent s t o th e search . Guitierrez v. State, 22 1 S.W.S d 680 , 686-8 8 

(Tex.Crim.App . 2007) . Som e Texa s court s hav e hel d tha t a n office r ma y as k fo r consen t 

2 2 
t o searc h a defendan t o r th e defendant' s vehicl e afte r finishin g a traffi c stop , withou t havin g 

a n y reasonabl e suspicio n t o d o so , jus t a s lon g a s th e office r doe s no t conve y a messag e 

tha t complianc e i s required . See Levi v. State, 14 7 S.W.3 d 541 , 54 4 (Tex . App.-Wac o 

2004 , pet . re f d ) an d Saldivar v. State, 20 9 S.W.S d 275 , 278-27 9 (Tex . App-For t Wort h 

2006 , n o pet. ) (mem . op.) . 

T h e Suprem e Cour t o f th e Unite d State s o f Americ a ha s recentl y rule d i n Rodriguez 

V. United States, 57 5 U.S . , 1S5S.Ct . 160 9 (2015) , tha t absen t reasonabl e suspicion , 

a polic e extensio n o f a traffi c sto p beyon d th e tim e neede d t o complet e th e inquirie s tha t 

wer e necessitate d b y th e interventio n violate s th e Fourt h Amendmen t righ t agains t 

unreasonabl e seizures . I n Rodriguez, th e Cour t foun d tha t prolongin g a traffi c sto p 

beyon d th e tim e reasonabl y require d t o complet e th e traffi c sto p t o conduc t a do g snif f 

require d reasonabl e suspicio n t o suppor t furthe r detention . 

I n th e cas e a t bar , th e Cour t shoul d fin d tha t n o consen t wa s given . It i s incredulou s 

t o believ e tha t Appellan t woul d consen t t o a searc h o f hi s vehicl e whe n tha t searc h woul d 

lea d t o evidenc e o f possibl e illega l activity . A s state d earlier , grea t deferenc e i s give n t o 

t h e tria l court' s rulin g concernin g th e demeano r an d credibilit y o f witnesses . Th e tria l cour t 

hear d conflictin g testimon y fro m th e office r wh o allegedl y aske d fo r consen t t o search . 

Appellant , an d Appellanf s wife . It strain s belie f tha t Appellan t woul d initiat e contac t wit h 

l a w enforcemen t an d the n consen t t o a searc h o f hi s vehicle . Thi s Cour t shoul d fin d tha t 

n o consen t wa s given . Therefor e th e searc h wa s illega l becaus e th e office r lacke d 

probabl e caus e t o conduc t a search . 

If th e Cour t believe s tha t consen t wa s given , it shoul d fin d tha t consen t wa s give n 

i n violatio n o f th e Fourt h Amendmen t righ t agains t unreasonabl e searc h an d seizur e i n tha t 

2S 
consen t wa s obtaine d afte r th e tim e neede d t o complet e th e initia l sto p o r intervention . I n 

t h e presen t cas e Appellan t ha d initiate d th e contac t wit h la w becaus e hi s vehicl e wa s 

stuck . Afte r arrivin g t o help , la w enforcemen t officer s determine d tha t Appellan t di d no t 

hav e a permi t t o b e o n th e wildlif e managemen t area . Afte r extricatin g Appellant' s vehicl e 

fro m th e sand , a warnin g fo r bein g o n th e wildlif e managemen t are a withou t a permi t wa s 

issue d t o Appellant . It wa s afte r th e tim e necessar y t o complet e th e missio n o f th e initia l 

traffi c sto p o r interventio n tha t la w enforcemen t allegedl y aske d fo r consen t t o searc h th e 

vehicle . Asth e Suprem e Cour t ha s rule d \n Rodriguez, reasonabl e suspicio n tha t evidenc e 

o f illega l activit y wil l b e foun d i s necessar y t o prolon g a sto p beyon d th e tim e reasonabl y 

require d t o complet e th e origina l mission . Ther e wa s n o testimon y elicite d i n th e Motio n 

t o Suppres s hearing s tha t indicate d tha t th e office r ha d a reasonabl e suspicio n t o as k fo r 

consen t t o search . Th e onl y reason s give n fo r th e reques t wer e tha t it wa s a lat e mode l 

Mercedes , it wa s o n a bac k road . Appellan t wa s a convicte d felon , an d Appellan t sai d h e 

h a d gotte n stuc k before . Non e o f thes e reason s giv e ris e t o reasonabl e suspicio n t o 

exten d th e sto p pas t th e origina l missio n an d th e issuanc e o f th e warnin g an d as k fo r 

consen t t o searc h Appellant' s vehicle . 

T h e searc h o f Appellant' s vehicl e reveale d th e gun s an d bod y armo r whic h wer e th e 

basi s o f th e charge s o f possessio n o f a firear m an d bod y armo r b y a felon . Withou t th e 

fruit s o f thi s illega l searc h an d seizure , th e Stat e woul d hav e bee n unabl e t o prov e th e 

allegation s fo r th e offense s o f Possessio n o f a Firear m b y a Felo n an d Possessio n o f Bod y 

Armo r b y a Felon . A s a resul t o f th e court' s erroneou s ruling , Appellan t wa s force d t o ple a 

whe n face d wit h th e overwhelmin g fea r o f a lif e sentence . 

2 4 
T h e Tria l Cour t abuse d it s discretio n b y allowin g th e admissio n o f evidenc e i n 

violatio n o f Appellant' s Fourt h Amendmen t righ t agains t illega l searche s an d seizures . A s 

a result , thi s Cour t mus t revers e th e judgment . 

2 5 
ARGUMENT 

POINT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO 

T h e Tria l Cour t abuse d it s discretio n i n allowin g th e admissio n o f certai n statement s 

a n d response s o f Appellan t i n violatio n o f hi s Fift h Amendmen t righ t agains t self -

incrimination . 

A n admissio n o r a statemen t inculpatin g a declaran t bu t no t on e whic h 

acknowledge s guil t mad e unde r custodia l interrogatio n b y a n agen t o f th e Stat e i s 

presume d t o b e coerce d an d involuntar y an d i n violatio n o f a person' s Fift h Amendmen t 

righ t agains t self-incriminatio n unles s /W/rand a warning s ar e given . Miranda v. Arizona, 38 4 

U.S . 436 , 8 6 S.Ct . 160 2 (1966) . Miranda warning s fin d constitutiona l suppor t i n th e Texa s 

Constitution . Articl e I Sec . 19 , Texa s Du e Proces s Claus e state s that " N o citize n o f thi s 

Stat e shal l b e deprive d o f life , liberty , property , privilege s o r immunities , o r i n an y manne r 

disenfranchised , excep t b y th e du e cours e o f th e la w o f th e land. " See WolfV. State, 91 7 

S.W.2 d 27 0 (Tex.Crim.App . 1996) . Furthermor e th e Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e 

Articl e 38.2 1 state s tha t a statemen t o f a n accuse d canno t b e admitte d unles s it ca n b e 

show n "tha t th e sam e wa s freel y an d voluntaril y mad e withou t compulsio n o r persuasion , 

unde r th e rule s hereafte r prescribed. " Thes e rule s mentione d ar e foun d i n Articl e 15.1 7 

a n d Articl e 38.2 2 o f th e Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedure . The y basicall y requir e th e 

sam e warning s foun d i n Miranda. 

Befor e thes e warning s ar e required , a n individua l mus t b e i n custod y an d th e 

subjec t o f interrogation . Articl e 15.2 2 o f th e Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e say s tha t 

2 6 
a n individua l "i s arreste d whe n h e a s bee n actuall y place d unde r restrain t o r take n int o 

custod y b y a n office r o r perso n executin g a warran t o f arrest , o r b y a n office r o r perso n 

arrestin g withou t a warrant. " Interrogatio n i s expres s questionin g o r action s intende d t o 

elici t a response . Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 2Q^, 10 0 S.Ct . 168 2 (1980) . 

I n th e presen t case . Appellan t wa s i n custody . H e ha d bee n place d i n restraints . 

Appellan t wa s als o th e subjec t o f interrogation . H e wa s subjecte d t o a "fiel d interview " b y 

t h e office r wh o ha d restraine d him . Th e warning s require d b y Mirand a an d Th e Texa s 

Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e wer e neve r given . Ever y statemen t o r respons e give n b y 

Appellan t a t th e scen e afte r bein g place d i n restraint s ar e inadmissibl e an d shoul d hav e 

bee n exclude d b y th e Tria l Court . 

Appellant' s statement s an d response s t o th e fiel d intervie w wer e th e basi s fo r th e 

charg e o f Impersonatin g a Publi c Servant . Withou t thi s improperl y admitte d evidence , th e 

Stat e woul d no t hav e bee n abl e t o mee t thei r burde n o f proo f i n thi s matter . A s a resul t o f 

t h e denia l o f hi s motio n t o suppress . Appellan t wa s face d wit h th e introductio n o f thi s 

evidenc e whic h wa s th e onl y evidenc e th e Stat e ha d i n suppor t o f th e Impersonatin g a 

Publi c Servan t charge . Face d wit h th e prospec t o f a possibl e lif e sentence , Appellan t 

chos e t o plea . 

T h e Tria l Cour t abuse d it s discretio n b y allowin g th e admissio n o f evidenc e i n 

violatio n o f Appellant' s Fift h Amendmen t righ t agains t self-incrimination . A s a result , thi s 

Cour t mus t revers e th e judgment . 

2 7 
PRAYER 

F o r th e abov e an d foregoin g reasons , Appellan t pray s tha t Appellant' s 

convictio n i n Caus e No . 12-15-00186-CR , appeale d i n Caus e No . 3167 5 fro m th e Thir d 

Judicia l Distric t Cour t o f Anderso n County , Texas , b e reversed . 

Respectfull y submitted . 

Attorne y fo r Appellan t 

2 8 
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.4(iU3) 

I certif y tha t accordin g t o th e Microsof t Wor d program' s word-coun t function , th e 

brie f file d i n thi s matte r contain s 5,55 0 word s excludin g th e caption , identit y o f partie s an d 

counsel , tabl e o f contents , inde x o f authorities , statemen t o f th e case , statemen t o f issue s 

presented , signature , proo f o f service , certificatio n an d certificat e o f compliance . 

Respectfull y submitted , 

PHILI P C . FLETCHE R 

8 0 0 Nort h Mallar d 

Palestine , Texa s 7580 1 

Tel : (903 ) 731-444 0 

Stat e Ba r No . 0078747 8 

Attorne y fo r Appellan t 

2 9 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereb y certif y tha t a tru e an d correc t cop y o f th e abov e an d foregoin g Brie f ha s 

bee n Han d Delivere d t o Allyso n Mitchel l an d Scot t Holden , Anderso n Count y Crimina l 

Distric t Attorney' s Office , Attorne y fo r Appellee , Anderso n Count y Courthouse , 50 0 Nort h 

Churc h Street , Palestine , Texa s 758Q;h'oriT?ri s th^O^ ^ da y o f November , 2015 . 

3 0