Darin Keith Martin v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 06-07-00104-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 27, 2008; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Darin Keith Martin appeals his convictions for forgery, fraudulent use of identifying information, and forgery of a governmental record, following a traffic stop by Trooper Ronnie Hubbell, who identified illegal window tinting on Martin's vehicle. During the stop, occupants discarded a paper bag, and a search revealed fake identifications and checks linked to Martin. Martin's motion to suppress the evidence was denied, leading to his guilty plea under a negotiated agreement. He raises the same argument across three pending appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. The appellate court reviews the suppression ruling using a bifurcated standard, deferring to the trial court on factual determinations but reviewing legal applications de novo. Under the Fourth Amendment and Texas law, warrantless searches are typically unreasonable unless exceptions apply, such as the automobile exception, which allows searches if probable cause exists and a warrant cannot be obtained due to the vehicle's mobility.

Officers are permitted to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles, encompassing all areas of the vehicle and its contents that may hide the object of the search, as established in *United States v. Ross*. A defendant claiming a Fourth Amendment violation must initially show evidence that a search or seizure occurred without a warrant, shifting the burden to the State to demonstrate the search's reasonableness under the totality of circumstances. Under Article 38.23, any evidence obtained through illegal means is subject to exclusion if a causal link with the illegality is proven.

The central issue in this case is whether Officer Hubbell had probable cause to believe a crime was committed and that contraband was in the vehicle. Probable cause requires more than mere suspicion but less than the evidence needed for conviction. It exists when officers possess trustworthy information warranting a reasonable belief that an offense has occurred or is ongoing. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recognizes that the odor of contraband can be pivotal in assessing probable cause, with trained officers detecting marijuana being sufficient for this determination.

In this case, Hubbell observed suspicious behavior, including a longer-than-average stop time, occupants who appeared defiant, and the throwing of a small brown bag from the vehicle. Upon approaching the vehicle, he detected the smell of marijuana, and bags similar to the one discarded were visible. Despite the occupant Martin's denial of similar bags' presence, the trial court favored Hubbell's testimony, corroborated by video evidence. Based on these facts, the court found that Hubbell had reasonable grounds to believe a crime was taking place, affirming the trial court's denial of Martin's motion to suppress the evidence.

Additionally, the Texas Transportation Code permits a police officer to stop and detain someone for observed traffic violations, which Martin did not challenge in this case.

Martin appealed two convictions: one for fraudulent use of identifying information (cause number 06-07-00105-CR) and another for forgery of a governmental record (cause number 06-07-00106-CR). Legal precedents indicate that probable cause for a search can arise from the odor of marijuana, as established in Parker v. State, which found probable cause based on the smell of marijuana and reports of underage drinking without contesting exigent circumstances. Similarly, in Moulden v. State and Razo v. State, the detection of burnt marijuana by trained officers was deemed sufficient for probable cause to search a vehicle. Additionally, in Sauseda v. State, the odor of marijuana from a car, coupled with the observation of a suspect discarding a suspicious object, provided probable cause. However, in contrast, State v. Steelman clarified that the odor of marijuana alone does not justify a warrantless search and seizure within a home.