Court Opinion

ID: 9771684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:51:10.729131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:35.439380
License: Public Domain

BARAJAS, Justice,
concurring.
I wholly concur with the majority’s holding that the State failed to present evidence as to the specific facts and circumstances to justify Appellee’s arrest. The decision to write separately, however, in no way reflects disagreement with the reasoning inherent in the opinion of the majority. Instead, my concurrence results only from a desire to once again set forth the procedural requirements necessary in addressing alleged Fourth Amendment violations.
*822Review of the record in the instant case reflects that at the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, the following discussion took place:
[The Defense]: Your Honor, it’s our motion to suppress. I think in each case, Your Honor, it’s my understanding that we — we probably agree that Mr. Hopper was arrested on a warrantless basis. I don’t mind proceeding however the State wishes to do it.
[The Court]: Ordinarily, the State proceeds on these.
[The State]: Well, Judge, I think that—
[The Court]: Since there is no warrant— I mean, he says there is no warrant. I don’t know whether—
[The Defense]: Judge, I can call — I mean, whatever the State wants to do.
[The State]: I think that since it’s his motion, Judge—
[The Court]: You’d like for him to call the witness?
[The Defense]: We would invoke the Rule, then, Your Honor.
The Defense then called its first witness, Sergeant Victor Rivera, the arresting officer, as an “adverse party.”
Once again it becomes apparent that unnecessary confusion lies in who has the burden in establishing the legality or illegality of a police conduct with respect to searches and seizures.
As the majority opinion has so clearly pointed out, the burden of proof is initially upon the defendant when the defendant seeks to suppress evidence on the basis of a Fourth Amendment violation. Russell v. State, 717 S.W.2d 7 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Mattel v. State, 455 S.W.2d 761, 765-66 (Tex.Crim.App.1970); see also State v. Wood, 828 S.W.2d 471, 474 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1992, no pet.). While standing is not a precondition to testing the validity of a search or seizure, a defendant contesting such police action should include allegations of standing in their motions to suppress. Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645, 647 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); cf. Cannon v. State, 807 S.W.2d 631 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.). It is a well-recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of proper police conduct. In that regard, in order to defeat that presumption of such proper conduct, the defendant has the initial burden of producing evidence to establish the following:
(1) that a search or seizure occurred; and
(2) that such search or seizure occurred without a warrant or valid consent.
Once a defendant has met his burden of production which establishes the above, the burden then shifts to the State to establish one of the following:
(1) that the search or seizure was pursuant to a warrant which is valid on its face, in which case the State must produce both the warrant and the supporting affidavit for inspection of the trial court for determination of its sufficiency. See Russell, 717 S.W.2d at 10, citing Rumsey v. State, 675 S.W.2d 517 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), overruled in part in Miller v. State, 736 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). If the State produces a warrant that is valid on its face, the burden of proof shifts back to the defendant to establish the invalidity of any such warrant by a preponderance of the evidence. Rumsey v. State, 675 S.W.2d at 520; State v. Wood, 828 S.W.2d at 475.
(2) if the search or arrest was effected without a warrant, or if the State is unable to otherwise produce a warrant, the State must prove the reasonableness of the search or seizure by a preponderance of the evidence. Russell v. State, 717 S.W.2d at 10, citing LaLande v. State, 676 S.W.2d 115 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); State v. Wood, 828 S.W.2d at 475. (3) if the search is allegedly consensual in nature, the State must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s consent was freely and voluntarily given. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1792, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968); Dickey v. State, 716 S.W.2d 499 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).
*823While the Texas Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals have promulgated and adopted “The Texas Lawyer’s Creed — A Mandate for Professionalism” wherein it is stated that a lawyer owes to opposing counsel, in the conduct of legal transactions and the pursuit of litigation, courtesy, candor, cooperation and scrupulous observance of all agreements and mutual understanding, such candor and cooperation does not extend to the shifting of the burden of proof to opposing counsel out of courtesy.
The record in the instant case firmly establishes, and the majority opinion holds, that the law enforcement officer had specific articulable facts coupled with his experience, knowledge and logical inferences to justify the initial stop of Appellee, with or without probable cause. The record however, is devoid of any evidence upon which the trial court could reasonably determine that the arresting officer had probable cause to effect Appellee’s arrest for driving while intoxicated. The State of Texas, by its obvious failure to introduce any evidence as to the facts and circumstances within the law enforcement officer’s knowledge to warrant him to believe that Appel-lee was intoxicated, has failed to meet its burden of proof at the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence that the arrest of the Appellee was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Texas Constitution and other statutory provisions.3

. A careful review of the entire record reveals that at the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, the State did not seek to introduce any evidence as to the probable cause to arrest Appellee after the law enforcement officer made the initial lawful stop. Further, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the State was in any manner prevented from presenting such evidence.