Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lonnie Ross Skiff v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-03-00134-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; July 1, 2004; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Lonnie Ross Skiff pleaded guilty to possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine after his motion to suppress evidence was denied. The trial court sentenced him to two years' confinement. Skiff appealed, arguing that the court erred in overruling his motion to suppress, claiming the officers lacked probable cause for his arrest. On March 11, 2002, the Rio Concho Drug Enforcement Taskforce executed a search warrant at Tammy Lohse's residence, where they discovered methamphetamine. Lohse, facing charges, agreed to assist the officers in arresting her supplier, Skiff. She provided his address and described his vehicle. Although Lohse communicated with Skiff over the phone, only her side of the conversation was recorded. Skiff later arrived at Lohse's house, where Officer McGuire confronted him. As McGuire approached, Skiff dropped a Marlboro cigarette box, which was later found to contain methamphetamine. Skiff contested the legality of the arrest and the subsequent search that led to the discovery of the drugs, claiming he had not been in contact with Lohse and had come to visit her brother. The court found that there was probable cause to arrest Skiff based on Lohse’s information and the circumstances surrounding his arrival, ultimately affirming the conviction. Reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress involves a de novo examination of mixed questions of law and fact that do not rely on credibility assessments, giving almost total deference to the trial court's findings of historical facts and credibility evaluations. A police officer can arrest an individual without a warrant for any offense committed in their presence, provided there is probable cause. Probable cause is established when the facts and circumstances known to the officer are sufficient for a reasonable person to believe that an offense has occurred or is occurring. Mere suspicion or a good faith perception is insufficient for probable cause, which is determined by evaluating the totality of the circumstances. In this case, Lohse informed officers that Skiff supplied methamphetamine and indicated she would call him for more. Officers observed her make the call and Skiff arrived shortly thereafter, matching the vehicle description and being identified by Lohse. Despite Skiff's claim that he was visiting Lohse's brother, the trial court found his testimony untrustworthy. Given the totality of evidence, the court concluded that probable cause existed to believe Skiff was at Lohse's residence with methamphetamine. The appeal regarding Skiff's arrest was overruled, affirming the conviction. The court also stated that since probable cause was established, it need not address the State's argument about the abandonment of the cigarette box containing methamphetamine.