#13-14-00680-CR

 

Thirteenth Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi & Edinburg 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellant 

v.

ISRAEL RAMIREZ, 

Appellee 

 

ON STATE’S APPEAL FROM THE 94TH DISTRICT COURT 

OF NUECES COUNTY, CAUSE #13-CR-2209-D 

STATE’S REPLY BRIEF 

A. Cliff Gordon 

Tex. Bar #00793838 

Asst. Dist. Atty., 105th Dist. 

Nueces County Courthouse 

901 Leopard St., Rm. 206 

Corpus Christi, TX 78401 

361.888.0410 phone 

361.888.0399 fax 

cliff.gordon@nuecesco.com

ACCEPTED

13-14-00680-CR

THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

7/16/2015 2:34:00 PM

CECILE FOY GSANGER

CLERK

 FILED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS 7/16/2015 2:34:00 PM CECILE FOY GSANGER Clerk
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................... ii

ARGUMENT............................................................................................................1

An officer may properly search a person without a warrant—

outside his home—upon probable cause that the person 

possesses illegal drugs on his person ......................................................1

a. Probable cause to search a person, on the basis that he 

likely has illegal drugs on his person, is no different from 

probable cause to arrest.......................................................................2

b. Probable cause to search a person for illegal drugs outside 

his home justifies a search incident to arrest even before 

formal arrest ..........................................................................................3

PRAYER....................................................................................................................5

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................6
ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Esquivel v. State, No. 13-13-00339-CR, 2014 WL 3049520 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi July 3, 2014, no pet.) ..........................................................4

Parker v. State, 206 S.W.3d 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)................................2, 3

Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980)............................................................4

State v. Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)...................................5
1

ARGUMENT

The crux of Appellee Israel Ramirez’s argument is that probable 

cause “is irrelevant.” Ramirez’s Brief at 8. Regardless of probable cause—

Ramirez contends—the State proved no exception to the warrant 

requirement, which renders the search unlawful. Ibid.

The trial court’s conclusions included nothing about this type of 

rationale. Supp. CR 20. And, quite frankly, the State is somewhat 

surprised by Ramirez’s argument that an officer with probable cause to 

believe that a suspect, not in his home, possesses heroin on his person 

cannot search his person and the containers on his person for it. But the 

State acknowledges its burden to justify a warrantless search, even if that 

burden in this case amounts to an academic exercise.

An officer may properly search a person without a warrant—outside his 

home—upon probable cause that the person possesses illegal drugs on 

his person. 

Ramirez cites no case for his proposition that an officer cannot—

without a warrant—search a suspect found in a public place even when the 

officer is armed with probable cause to believe that the suspect possesses 

heroin on his person. Such a case would defy logic, reason, and the law.
2

As a matter of logic, it makes little sense to require a warrant when 

an officer simultaneously encounters both a probable drug offender and 

the probable location of his illegal drugs (the offender himself) beyond the 

threshold of the offender’s home.

As a matter of reason, it is simpler and quicker—for both the officer 

and offender—for the officer to immediately search the offender to confirm 

or refute the officer’s probable cause. 

a. Probable cause to search a person, on the basis that he likely 

has illegal drugs on his person, is no different from probable 

cause to arrest.

Not surprisingly, the law agrees with logic and reason and does not 

support any Fourth Amendment violation here. Probable cause to search 

requires evidence that a crime has been committed or is being committed 

in some particular place, while probable cause to arrest requires evidence 

that a crime has been committed or is being committed by a particular 

person. See Parker v. State, 206 S.W.3d 593, 596-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

Thus the first portion of a probable cause analysis, whether there is 

evidence that a crime has been or is being committed, is identical for both 
3

probable cause to search and probable cause to arrest. See id. at 596. Only in 

the second portion of the probable cause analysis—whether the probable 

cause points to a particular place (permitting a search) or to a particular 

person (permitting an arrest)—do probable cause to search and probable 

cause to arrest differ. Ibid.

Thus, where probable exists to search a person for possessing heroin, 

probable cause also exists to arrest that person. This is because the 

probable place of the heroin and the person probably possessing it align, 

eclipsing the legal difference between probable cause to search and 

probable cause to arrest. See Parker, at 596.

In this case, therefore, Officer Garcia’s probable cause to search 

Ramirez’s keychain for heroin—as discussed in the State’s Brief—equates 

to probable cause to arrest Ramirez. 

b. Probable cause to search a person for illegal drugs outside his 

home justifies a search incident to arrest even before formal 

arrest.

The State concedes that Officer Garcia did not arrest Ramirez before 

searching the containing, as the trial court found (Supp. CR 26 [Finding 
4

#35; Conclusion #2], and, thus, that Officer Garcia’s search was not incident 

to his arrest, at least factually.

Legally, however, Officer Garcia did not have to arrest Ramirez 

before conducting a search incident to arrest, which Ramirez agrees is an 

exception to the warrant requirement. Ramirez’s Brief at 6. Legally, an 

officer may search incident to arrest after obtaining probable cause to 

arrest—

It is irrelevant whether the arrest occurs immediately before or 

after the search, as long as probable cause to arrest precedes the 

search. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 111, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 

65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); see also State v. Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889, 

892 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

* * *

Appellant was not under arrest when the officers searched him, 

but the law only requires that probable cause to arrest precede 

a search incident to arrest.

Esquivel v. State, No. 13-13-00339-CR, 2014 WL 3049520, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi July 3, 2014, no pet.) (not designated for publication); 

Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 111 (1980) (“Where the formal arrest 

followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search of petitioner’s 

person, we do not believe it particularly important that the search preceded 
5

the arrest rather than vice versa.”), cited with approval in State v. Ballard, 987 

S.W.2d 889, 892 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

In sum, probable cause to search Ramirez also establishes probable 

cause to arrest him, authorizing the search of the keychain immediately 

prior to his arrest without a warrant.

PRAYER

For these reasons, the State requests that the Court reverse the trial 

court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress, remand for further 

proceedings, and grant the State all other proper relief.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ A. Cliff Gordon

A. Cliff Gordon

Tex. Bar #00793838

Asst. Dist. Atty., 105th Dist.

Nueces County Courthouse

901 Leopard St., Rm. 206

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

361.888.0410 phone

361.888.0399 fax

cliff.gordon@nuecesco.com
6

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

According to the word count of the computer program used to 

prepare this document, it contains 1168 words.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On July 16, 2015, a true copy of the foregoing was served via EServe 

on the following:

Mr. Todd Robinson

Batek & Robinson, LLP

102 N. Staples St.

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

trob4225@aol.com

Counsel for Appellee

/s/ A. Cliff Gordon_______________

A. Cliff Gordon