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.
Jose Armando Garcia v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-12-00214-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 27, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Jose Armando Garcia appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. The case stems from a traffic stop conducted by DPS Officer C.J. Villarreal, who pulled over Garcia's vehicle for speeding. Upon approaching the car, Villarreal detected a strong odor of burnt marijuana and observed the driver adjusting a bulge in his stomach, which led to the discovery of marijuana. While still in the vehicle, Villarreal noticed a bulge and cellophane in Garcia's jeans pocket, which he associated with contraband based on his experience. After ordering Garcia to exit the vehicle, Villarreal retrieved 1.86 grams of cocaine from the pocket. The trial court found sufficient probable cause for the search based on the circumstances, including the smell of marijuana and the bulge in Garcia's pocket, and denied the motion to suppress. Garcia subsequently pleaded guilty and received a five-year sentence. The appellate court employs a bifurcated standard of review for suppression motions, deferring to the trial court's findings on historical facts while applying a de novo standard for legal questions. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision. Upholding the trial court's ruling requires that it is reasonably supported by the record and correct under any applicable legal theory. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring probable cause for warrants and specific descriptions of the places and items involved. The reasonableness of a search or seizure is evaluated by the totality of circumstances, balancing public interest against individual rights. Officers with probable cause to believe an offense is occurring may take reasonable measures, including searches, to preserve evidence. In this case, Officer Villarreal had sufficient probable cause, based on the odor of marijuana and his observation of a bulge in appellant's pocket, to justify searching the appellant for drugs. The search was deemed a reasonable action to prevent evidence destruction. The trial court's decision to deny the motion to suppress was supported by undisputed facts and aligned with legal standards, resulting in the conclusion that there was no error in the ruling. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.