Judge rules partly for defense on Reyes statements but denies suppression of vehicle stop

The 390th Judicial District Court in Bexar County conducted a suppression hearing in State of Texas v. Felipe Reyes concerning the legality of a police stop and the admissibility of statements Reyes made after officers detained him.

The court suppressed a portion of Reyes’s early statements but denied the defense’s request to suppress the stop itself or statements made after Miranda warnings, saying the initial portion of the recorded interview was inadmissible. “The court is finding inadmissible this statement that was obtained from the defendant from, I believe it was listed as 1 hour 17 minutes and 7 seconds to 1 hour 18 minutes, and I believe this is 38 seconds…so that first statement that is made by the defendant…the court will grant your motion to suppress that part of the statement,” the judge said. The court then said the portion made after the Miranda warning would remain admissible: “The statement made by the defendant after he had been, Mirandized, that part of your request to suppress that statement will be, denied.” The court denied the motion to suppress the vehicle stop.

Why it matters: whether officers lawfully stopped Reyes’s vehicle and whether his recorded statements can be used are central to whether prosecutors can rely on the statements and evidence found after the encounter. The court’s split ruling means prosecutors may proceed with post‑Miranda statements and the physical evidence, while the defense can exclude the specified pre‑Miranda excerpt.

Key facts from testimony and recordings presented at the hearing: detectives received a Crime Stoppers tip reporting alleged narcotics activity at an address identified as 2223 (also referenced as 2233 in testimony) Hidalgo Walk. Detective Justin Ramirez testified he watched activity at the unit and observed “four individuals” come and go; Ramirez said he “saw the 4 individuals listed on the report” and later followed a vehicle that left the location. Ramirez testified he observed a traffic violation at the intersection of Couples and Morelia and that other officers attempted a stop; he acknowledged not having the Crime Stoppers record available and said he could not recall exact time intervals.

Ramirez testified that the vehicle in which Reyes rode did not stop for officers’ lights and later crashed; officers later took Reyes into custody. Ramirez acknowledged that some of the investigative recordings were not available or he did not have access to them, and that he had not reviewed the Crime Stoppers submission before testifying: “There is a Crime Stoppers email, if you will, but I don't have any record of it,” Ramirez said.

Defense counsel played portions of a body‑worn camera recording from Detective Matt Robles (offered as Defense Exhibit 1) and a supplementary written form titled a voluntary acknowledgment of contraband (offered as Defense Exhibit 2). The court admitted the Robles body‑worn recording for the purposes of the hearing. The defense argued portions of the recorded conversation were muted and that officers instructed the defendant about what to write on a voluntary acknowledgment form while the camera was muted. Prosecutors opposed excluding the post‑Miranda statements and argued the written acknowledgment complied with statutory requirements; the court ruled the written form admissible for the hearing but agreed the early, unrecorded/muted portion of the interview should be suppressed.

The court’s rulings: the judge (on the record) (1) granted the defense’s motion to suppress the defendant’s statement recorded between ~1:17:07 and ~1:18:38 (inadmissible); (2) denied the defense’s motion to suppress the later statements made after Miranda warnings; and (3) denied the defense’s request to suppress evidence from the vehicle stop (the stop challenge failed).

The hearing also documented several operational details that will be relevant at trial: Detective Ramirez said he watched a unit at the address for about two hours before seeing activity; multiple officers and detectives were present at the scene; some body‑worn camera segments were muted or not functioning; and officers recovered a backpack containing suspected controlled substances after the crash and arrest. The defense asked the court to redact portions of the video and written forms for trial; the court directed counsel to make those redactions and preserved objections for trial.

Ending note: with the partial suppression ruling the state may rely on the post‑Miranda statements and the physical evidence collected after the stop, while the defense will seek to exclude the specified early excerpt and press issues about camera recordings and how the voluntary acknowledgment form was completed.