Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Search And Seizure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge to review video after suppression hearing in State v. Michael Hill; officers seized drugs and a firearm
Summary
At a suppression hearing, the state presented officer testimony and camera footage after a traffic stop that recorded a 70 mph radar reading in a 45 zone and an officers detection of marijuana odor; defense argued the stop was unlawfully prolonged (about six minutes) and the judge will replay the video and take the matter under advisement.
The court heard a motion to suppress in State v. Michael Hill on July 17 after a warrantless search of a vehicle. Officer Andrew Vasquez of the Universal City Police Department testified that he stopped a white Infiniti for speeding, that his radar/lidar read 70 in a 45 mph zone, and that when he approached the cars open window he detected the odor of marijuana emanating from inside the vehicle. "Yes," the officer agreed on cross-examination when asked whether the odor alone was the reason he conducted the search.
State evidence admitted for the hearing included the officer's dash and body-camera footage; the court previewed those exhibits and played video to establish timing. Counsel and the officer agreed that roughly "six minutes" elapsed between the initial detention and the start of the vehicle search, a point defense counsel argued was an unlawful prolongation. The officer testified that during and after the stop officers recovered baggies, a scale, marijuana and a firearm from the vehicle and arrested Mr. Hill.
The prosecutor urged the court to deny the motion, citing Texas law and precedent and arguing that an experienced officer's detection of marijuana odor supplies probable cause for a warrantless search. "To summarize, judge, there's been no violation of article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure," the prosecutor told the court, citing multiple appellate decisions.
Defense counsel countered that the stop had been completed for its traffic purpose and that the officer's subsequent actions prolonged the seizure without new, articulable facts justified under Rodriguez v. United States and related Texas cases; counsel also questioned whether the officer had training to distinguish marijuana from hemp and whether subjective signs such as sweating could reasonably indicate criminal activity.
After extended testimony and legal argument, the judge said she would watch the footage again and take time to review the parties' case law before issuing a ruling; the suppression motion was left under advisement and the court scheduled to continue the hearing the next day.
