Judge denies suppression motion; testimony details teller interaction, bodycam footage and four-hour detention in fraud case

Judge Stephanie Boyd presiding in the 187th Judicial District Court denied a defense motion to suppress statements by defendant Carlos Perez in State of Texas v. Carlos Perez (Cause No. 2025CR005408), concluding on the record that Perez’s statements were made voluntarily and that officers’ testimony about custodial circumstances was credible.

The ruling came after the court reviewed exhibits and evidence admitted at an outside-the-presence-of-the-jury hearing. The judge said, “The court finds that the officers were credible and truthful” and that Perez “freely and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights” after being read the warnings, language the court repeated when explaining its factual findings about timing and custody.

The denial cleared the way for the state to present the body-worn and vehicle camera footage that prosecutors had offered. The court admitted State’s Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 after hearing objections from defense counsel about hearsay and the potential to “bolster” officer testimony; the judge overruled those objections and said any specific hearsay disputes could be raised when the recording was played or offered into evidence.

Prosecutors called Wells Fargo teller Wendy Castellon and SAPD officers Alex Shaway (cover officer) and Officer Zachary McFadden (handling officer). Castellon identified the presented check (marked State’s Exhibit 1) as a Wells Fargo check and said she required two forms of identification to cash a check for a non-customer; she testified that on 03/07/2025 a man wearing a yellow safety vest presented a check that she judged had a signature that did not match the account holder’s signature on file, which prompted her to contact the account owner and to call police. Castellon described calling the account owner and reviewing the check’s routing number and account sequence as part of the bank’s verification steps.

Officer Shaway said he arrived after Officer McFadden and initially detained one person who was later released; Shaway identified Perez in court and described detaining Perez, taking items from his pockets and placing him in a patrol vehicle. Officer McFadden testified he detained a man in a reflective vest who was moving toward a vehicle and that he conducted the primary investigation, including Mirandizing Perez and attempting repeated calls to a fraud detective. McFadden described the body-worn and vehicle camera footage as fair and accurate depictions of March 7 events; those recordings were admitted as State’s Exhibits 4 (body cam), 5 (body cam), and 6 (rear-seat/dash footage).

The transcript and admitted footage indicate that Perez was read Miranda warnings before he made statements (the court and witnesses placed the first warnings in the late afternoon, around 16:56, and a later warning around 19:45), that officers questioned Perez while he was handcuffed and in a patrol vehicle, and that Perez remained in custody in a patrol vehicle for several hours while officers attempted to reach a detective assigned to commercial-fraud follow-up (a “gap” detective). McFadden explained to the jury that follow-up fraud/forgery detectives typically start after 7 p.m., so short-staffing in that interim contributed to the extended wait for investigative follow-up.

Prosecutors emphasized statements Perez made while in custody — for example, lines cited by the state included Perez saying “I shouldn’t have taken the check” and that the person who gave him the check “seemed shady.” Defense counsel objected to the weight and interpretation of those statements and argued the state had not proven identity, intent, or nonconsent beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense closing argued Perez had been cooperative, that the bank teller could not positively identify him beyond a general description (Hispanic male in a yellow vest), and that police could have handled the incident as an at-large matter and completed further investigation before seeking an arrest.

The court also resolved pretrial scheduling and logistics earlier in the proceeding: the judge discussed a jury-trial setting and indicated a return date would be entered on the record for trial settings. The court took multiple brief recesses during the proceedings to address redactions and exhibit review before bringing the jury back.

The case will proceed to the jury; jurors were instructed at the close of evidence and given the statutory elements for fraudulent use or possession of identifying information (elements were read to the jury by the court). The court denied the defense motion for suppression and admitted the surveillance and body-camera exhibits that prosecutors intend to play for the jury.

Looking ahead, defense counsel indicated they might present witnesses or cross-examine further, but at the close of the state’s case the state rested and the defense indicated it would speak with the client before presenting any witnesses. The jury charge recited the statutory elements the jury must unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt to convict: that Perez possessed identifying information belonging to another without consent and with intent to harm or defraud.