Judge denies motion to suppress after deputy testimony in Zamarripa case

A Bear County judge denied a defense motion to suppress evidence on the state’s motion in State v. Samuel Zamarripa after a deputy testified the stop began as a welfare check at a restaurant drive‑thru and escalated when officers smelled alcohol and observed an open container.

Deputy Rogelio Trevino, testifying for the state, said he and a trainee responded to a report on April 28, 2025, of a man asleep in a white SUV at 11811 Pitcairn Road. "I smelled the odor of alcoholic beverage coming from out of the vehicle," Trevino testified, and he and the trainee asked the driver, who the deputy later identified as Samuel Zamarripa, to turn off the vehicle and step out.

The defense argued the encounter began and remained a community caretaking welfare check and emphasized that "sleeping in your car is not a crime in the state of Texas," citing case law that, the defense said, prohibits converting a caretaking response into a criminal investigation without exigent circumstances. Defense counsel pressed that the video and testimony showed the defendant awake, responsive and not in apparent distress, and pointed out that deputies did not give Miranda warnings before asking about drinking.

The state countered that responding officers were performing a community caretaking function when they arrived and that Trevino’s observations (odor of alcohol and an open container) and the trainee's standardized field sobriety tests provided a lawful basis to continue investigating. State counsel cited Gonzalez v. State in arguing for a two‑step community‑caretaking inquiry: (1) whether the officer’s primary motivation was caretaking and (2) whether the officer’s belief that the individual needed help was reasonable.

Deputy Trevino testified that after the field sobriety evaluations the deputies had probable cause to arrest for driving while intoxicated; he also said that, during booking at the jail, a bag of cocaine was found in the defendant’s wallet and that a search of the prisoner prior to entry to the South Tower was standard procedure. On cross‑examination Trevino acknowledged he did not recall the exact numeric breath test result, saying he was not sure of the percentage; defense counsel suggested the recorded breath reading was below the statutory 0.08 limit.

Defense counsel also questioned the factual basis for a subsequent blood warrant affidavit, noting language in the affidavit alleging the defendant "concealed his blood." Trevino testified he assisted the trainee in preparing the warrant affidavit and confirmed that cocaine was discovered on booking; he acknowledged that possession alone does not necessarily establish that a drug is in a person’s system.

After hearing arguments from both sides and discussing precedent cited by counsel (including cases cited from counsel as Gonzalez, Orbin/Corbin/Wright and Domingo on the significance of smell of alcohol), the court announced its ruling: "The motion will be denied." The judge then instructed courthouse staff to line up jurors and confirmed the jury had been selected, and the trial proceeded.

The hearing record reflects the court's decision on the suppression motion and indicates the prosecution intends to proceed to trial. The court also handled separate procedural matters later in the transcript, including a request for an expedited medical competency examination for a different defendant. No final verdict on the underlying charges against Samuel Zamarripa is recorded in the hearing transcript provided.