Fourth Amendment violation in Texas

2026“To suppress evidence on an alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the defendant bears the initial burden of producing evidence that rebuts the presumption 16 of proper police conduct.” Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

2026“To suppress evidence on an alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the defendant bears the initial burden of producing evidence that rebuts the presumption 16 of proper police conduct.” Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

2022App. 2007); see Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854, 872 (Tex. Crim.

2022App. 2007); see Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854, 872 (Tex. Crim.

2022Standard of Review To suppress evidence for an alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the defendant bears the initial burden of rebutting the presumption the police acted properly. 8 A defendant satisfies his initial burden if he establishes that the search or seizure occurred without a warrant. 9 Once the defendant shows he was searched or his property was seized without a warrant, the burden shifts to the State to establish that the search and the seizure were reasonable. 10 In evaluating a trial court’s suppression ruling, we must keep in mind that the “touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is re

2022Standard of Review To suppress evidence for an alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the defendant bears the initial burden of rebutting the presumption the police acted properly. 8 A defendant satisfies his initial burden if he establishes that the search or seizure occurred without a warrant. 9 Once the defendant shows he was searched or his property was seized without a warrant, the burden shifts to the State to establish that the search and the seizure were reasonable. 10 In evaluating a trial court’s suppression ruling, we must keep in mind that the “touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is re

2015Our decision in this case should not conducted pursuant to a warrant or was be read to mean that the State could not at reasonable.") (footnotes omitted); Russell a later time claim that any defect in this v. State, 717 S.W.2d 7 , 9- 10 transfer order is not a valid basis for grant- (Tex .Cr.App .1986) ("When a defendant ing a motion to quash. seeks to suppress evidence on the basis of We reverse the judgment of the court of ap- a Fourth Amendment violation , this Court peals and affirm the criminal district court's ruling has placed the burden of proof initially · th' quas hmg e III d'lctmenL

2015Our decision in this case should not conducted pursuant to a warrant or was be read to mean that the State could not at reasonable.") (footnotes omitted); Russell a later time claim that any defect in this v. State, 717 S.W.2d 7 , 9- 10 transfer order is not a valid basis for grant- (Tex .Cr.App .1986) ("When a defendant ing a motion to quash. seeks to suppress evidence on the basis of We reverse the judgment of the court of ap- a Fourth Amendment violation , this Court peals and affirm the criminal district court's ruling has placed the burden of proof initially · th' quas hmg e III d'lctmenL

2019“The initial burden of proof on a motion to suppress evidence on the basis of a Fourth Amendment violation rests with the defendant.” Dansby, 530 S.W.3d at 220 (citing Torres v. State, 182 S.W.3d 899, 902 (Tex. Crim.

2019“The initial burden of proof on a motion to suppress evidence on the basis of a Fourth Amendment violation rests with the defendant.” Dansby, 530 S.W.3d at 220 (citing Torres v. State, 182 S.W.3d 899, 902 (Tex. Crim.

2018The Court reiterated that the defendant “by bringing the motion to suppress, bore the burden of establishing all of the elements of her Fourth Amendment claim.” Id. (citing Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 105 , 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633, 642 (1980)).

2018The Court reiterated that the defendant “by bringing the motion to suppress, bore the burden of establishing all of the elements of her Fourth Amendment claim.” Id. (citing Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 105 , 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633, 642 (1980)).

2013Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 697-99 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89 .

2013Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 697-99 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89 .

2006See Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 492 (Tex.Cr.App.2005) (to establish Fourth Amendment violation, defendant bears initial burden of producing evidence to support finding of improper police conduct such as proving that a search occurred without a warrant shifting the burden to the State to establish the validity of the search); Russell v. State, 111 S.W.2d 7, 9-10 (Tex.Cr.App. 1986) (as movant in a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress evidence, defendant must produce evidence that defeats presumption of proper police conduct); Mattei v. State, 455 S.W.2d 761, 766 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); see also Ter

2006See Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 492 (Tex.Cr.App.2005) (to establish Fourth Amendment violation, defendant bears initial burden of producing evidence to support finding of improper police conduct such as proving that a search occurred without a warrant shifting the burden to the State to establish the validity of the search); Russell v. State, 111 S.W.2d 7, 9-10 (Tex.Cr.App. 1986) (as movant in a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress evidence, defendant must produce evidence that defeats presumption of proper police conduct); Mattei v. State, 455 S.W.2d 761, 766 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); see also Ter

2021See Kothe, 152 S.W.3d at 59 (“Only after a defendant has established his standing to complain may a court consider whether he has suffered a substantive Fourth Amendment violation.”).

2021See Kothe, 152 S.W.3d at 60 (“The appellate court may raise the issue of standing on its own; it may analyze that issue as a part of the Fourth Amendment claim presented; or it may conclude that the State has forfeited that argument because it failed to raise it in the trial court.”); accord Coleman v. State, 246 S.W.3d 76 , 84 n.30 (Tex. Crim.

2022Hernandez v. State, 60 S.W.3d 106, 106 (Tex. Crim.

2021Hernandez v. State, 60 S.W.3d 106, 106 (Tex. Crim.

2021See id., citing Whren, 517 U.S. at 813 (holding that the subjective intentions of an officer play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis).

2020Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis. 517 U.S. at 813 .

2015Only after a defendant has established his standing to complain may a court consider whether he has suffered a substantive Fourth Amendment violation.103 100 See id. et al (holding no reasonable expectation of privacy or Fourth Amendment protection for trespasser to property). 101 Moore, 395 S.W.3d at 159 (citing Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex. Crim.

2000Our discussion of a Fourth Amendment claim is equally applicable to a claim under article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution, see Villarreal , 935 S.W.2d at 138 , and to a claim under article 38.23(a).

2017In Wilson , the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recognized that Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978), "put defendants on notice that the privacy interest in the premises searched is an element of their Fourth Amendment claim, which they bear the burden of establishing" and that Sullivan v. State, 564 S.W.2d 698 (Tex. Crim.

2017In Wilson , the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recognized that Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978), "put defendants on notice that the privacy interest in the premises searched is an element of their Fourth Amendment claim, which they bear the burden of establishing" and that Sullivan v. State, 564 S.W.2d 698 (Tex. Crim.

2022In our next opinion, we cited Wilson v. State, 692 S.W.2d 661 , for the proposition that Fourth Amendment standing 1) is a preliminary element of a Fourth Amendment challenge, which is the defendant’s burden, and 2) can be analyzed for the first time on appeal. 6 Wilson illustrates that standing does not depend solely on evidence developed at the hearing on a motion to suppress.

2022In our next opinion, we cited Wilson v. State, 692 S.W.2d 661 , for the proposition that Fourth Amendment standing 1) is a preliminary element of a Fourth Amendment challenge, which is the defendant’s burden, and 2) can be analyzed for the first time on appeal. 6 Wilson illustrates that standing does not depend solely on evidence developed at the hearing on a motion to suppress.

2024“Whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred turns on an objective assessment of the officer’s actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time, and not on the officer’s actual [subjective] state of mind at the time the challenged action was taken.” O’Hara, 27 S.W.3d at 551 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 , 470–71 (1985)); accord Lerma, 543 S.W.3d at 191 .

2024“Whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred turns on an objective assessment of the officer’s actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time, and not on the officer’s actual [subjective] state of mind at the time the challenged action was taken.” O’Hara, 27 S.W.3d at 551 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 , 470–71 (1985)); accord Lerma, 543 S.W.3d at 191 .

2008App. 2002); State v. Ballman, 157 S.W.3d 65, 68 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref’d). 5 … Ross, 32 S.W.3d at 856 . 7 chose not to believe.6 In such cases, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, giving it almost total deference. 7 The party bringing the motion to suppress bears the burden of establishing all of the elements of his Fourth Amendment claim, including establishing his privacy interest in the premises searched. 8 Once a defendant has established the basis for a Fourth Amendment claim, however, the burden shifts to the prosecution to establis

2008App. 2002); State v. Ballman, 157 S.W.3d 65, 68 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref’d). 5 … Ross, 32 S.W.3d at 856 . 7 chose not to believe.6 In such cases, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, giving it almost total deference. 7 The party bringing the motion to suppress bears the burden of establishing all of the elements of his Fourth Amendment claim, including establishing his privacy interest in the premises searched. 8 Once a defendant has established the basis for a Fourth Amendment claim, however, the burden shifts to the prosecution to establis

2021See id., citing Whren, 517 U.S. at 813 (holding that the subjective intentions of an officer play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis).

2016“The Fourth Amendment test for a valid consent to search is that the consent be voluntary, and ‘[v]oluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances.’ ” Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 40 , 117 S.Ct. 417 , 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248-49 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)).

2025See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485 (1963) (explaining that exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained directly or indirectly from Fourth Amendment violation); Overshown v. State, 329 S.W.3d 201 , 205–06 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (“[E]ven if a stop becomes unlawful after its inception, only the evidence obtained because of the Fourth Amendment violation—that is, after the stop became unlawful—may be suppressed as ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’”).

2025See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485 (1963) (explaining that exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained directly or indirectly from Fourth Amendment violation); Overshown v. State, 329 S.W.3d 201 , 205–06 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (“[E]ven if a stop becomes unlawful after its inception, only the evidence obtained because of the Fourth Amendment violation—that is, after the stop became unlawful—may be suppressed as ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’”).

2024Evaluation of an alleged Fourth Amendment violation generally requires us to make “an objective assessment of an officer’s actions in light of the facts and circumstances then known to him.” Id. (citing Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 137 (1978)).

2024Evaluation of an alleged Fourth Amendment violation generally requires us to make “an objective assessment of an officer’s actions in light of the facts and circumstances then known to him.” Id. (citing Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 137 (1978)).

2016Amador, 221 S.W.3d at 672 ; see Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854, 872 (Tex.Crim.App.2009), cer t. denied, 558 U.S. 1093 , 130 S.Ct. 1015 , 175 L.Ed.2d 622 (2009).

2016Amador, 221 S.W.3d at 672 ; see Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854, 872 (Tex.Crim.App.2009), cer t. denied, 558 U.S. 1093 , 130 S.Ct. 1015 , 175 L.Ed.2d 622 (2009).

1998I, § 9, Tex. Const., will not be bound by Supreme Court decisions addressing the comparable Fourth Amendment issue." Heitman v. State, 815 S.W.2d 681, 690 (Tex.Cr.App.1991).

1998I, § 9, Tex. Const., will not be bound by Supreme Court decisions addressing the comparable Fourth Amendment issue.” Heitman v. State, 815 S.W.2d 681, 690 (Tex.Cr.App.1991).

2024“Whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred turns on an objective assessment of the officer’s actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time, and not on the officer’s actual [subjective] state of mind at the time the challenged action was taken.” O’Hara, 27 S.W.3d at 551 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 , 470–71 (1985)); accord Lerma, 543 S.W.3d at 191 .

2024“Whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred turns on an objective assessment of the officer’s actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time, and not on the officer’s actual [subjective] state of mind at the time the challenged action was taken.” O’Hara, 27 S.W.3d at 551 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 , 470–71 (1985)); accord Lerma, 543 S.W.3d at 191 .

2025Instead, it declares the car (or at least the air within it) to be a “constitutionally protected space.” But, if the Fourth Amendment violation arises without regard to whether any common-law trespass occurred and without any violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy, the majority is creating, to my mind, a new and undefined constitutionally protected space at odds with Katz’s own rejection of that notion. 389 U.S. at 351 .

2025Instead, it declares the car (or at least the air within it) to be a “constitutionally protected space.” But, if the Fourth Amendment violation arises without regard to whether any common-law trespass occurred and without any violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy, the majority is creating, to my mind, a new and undefined constitutionally protected space at odds with Katz’s own rejection of that notion. 389 U.S. at 351 .

2016IV; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 19–21 (1968) (describing Fourth Amendment analysis in context of investigatory stop).

2015IV; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 19–21 (1968) (describing Fourth Amendment analysis in context of investigatory stop).

2018Subjective intentions play no role in an ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.” 28 S.W.3d 538, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (citing Whren, 116 U.S. at 1772); accord Jordan v. State, 394 S.W.3d 58, 65 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d). “[T]he fact that the officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer’s action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action.” Whren, 116 U.S. at 1774 (quoting Scott v. -6- 04-17-00740-CR United

2018Subjective intentions play no role in an ordinary, probable- cause Fourth Amendment analysis.” Walter, 28 S.W.3d at 542 (citing Whren, 517 U.S. at 812–13).

2018The Court reiterated that the defendant “by bringing the motion to suppress, bore the burden of establishing all of the elements of her Fourth Amendment claim.” Id. (citing Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 105 , 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633, 642 (1980)).

2018The Court reiterated that the defendant “by bringing the motion to suppress, bore the burden of establishing all of the elements of her Fourth Amendment claim.” Id. (citing Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 105 , 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633, 642 (1980)).