Douglas v. State
1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 7100, 695 S.W.2d 817 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas law, a private citizen may conduct a warrantless arrest of a person and seize stolen property found in their possession, provided there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is the thief. A defendant who is a trespasser on a premises lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore cannot challenge a search of that premises.
Facts:
- Melvin Judie returned to his home at 306 Soders Street and discovered it had been burglarized and property was stolen.
- Sergeant Humphrey responded and told Judie he suspected who committed the burglary and that the person likely lived in a vacant house on the same street.
- Acting on this information, Judie conducted his own search of vacant houses on Soders Street.
- Inside a vacant house at 413 Soders, Judie found Appellant in possession of the property stolen from Judie's home.
- When confronted by Judie, Appellant made incriminating statements, admitting he took the property but claiming he would not have done so if he had known it was Judie's house.
- Judie took some of the stolen property, placed Appellant in his car, and drove to find Sergeant Humphrey.
- After locating him, Judie explained the situation to Humphrey, who then followed them back to the vacant house.
- At the vacant house, Humphrey administered a Miranda warning to Appellant and seized the remaining stolen property.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant was prosecuted for burglary of a habitation in a Texas trial court.
- Appellant filed a motion to suppress the stolen property and his incriminating oral statements, which the trial court denied.
- Appellant also moved for a mistrial based on the District Clerk's reference to multiple cause numbers when swearing in the jury; the trial court denied the motion.
- A jury convicted Appellant and assessed his punishment at thirty years in prison.
- Appellant appealed his conviction to the Texas Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court's denial of his motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence, including stolen property and incriminating statements, obtained by a private citizen from a trespasser found in a vacant building, inadmissible under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure as the product of an illegal citizen's arrest and search?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas, Justice.
No, the evidence is not inadmissible. A private citizen's warrantless arrest of a thief is authorized by article 18.16 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure where stolen property is found in the thief's possession. The court found that Judie had reasonable grounds and probable cause to believe the property was his and that Appellant was the thief, especially after Appellant's incriminating statements. Because the citizen's arrest was lawful, the contemporaneous seizure of the stolen property was also lawful. Furthermore, Appellant, as a trespasser in the vacant house, had no reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore cannot complain of Judie's warrantless entry or search. Finally, the incriminating statements were admissible as they were made voluntarily to Judie before the citizen's arrest was effectuated.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope and requirements of the citizen's arrest power for theft under Texas statutory law, affirming that a private citizen can act without a warrant if they have reasonable grounds. The court's application of the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' doctrine, from Rakas v. Illinois, to a search conducted by a private citizen is significant. It establishes that a defendant's status as a trespasser negates their standing to challenge a search, regardless of whether the search is conducted by law enforcement or a private individual acting under statutory authority. This provides a strong legal basis for crime victims to recover property and apprehend suspects found in locations where the suspect has no legal right to be.
