04-04-03

Operation Iraqi Freedom

Legal Issues - Confession

OFFICER’S QUESTION CONCERNING OWNERSHIP OF KNIFE WAS “CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.”

The defendant and others were present at a storage unit while two men were placing newly purchased tools and equipment in an adjacent storage unit. When the owners found the lock cut on their storage unit and the tools missing, they asked the storage facility manager to let them know if anyone returned to the nearby unit.

One of the owners was called by the manager a few days later, and he drove to the facility. When he arrived, he stopped behind a vehicle that was parked in front of the unit adjacent to his.

A woman tried to close the door to the unit, even before the man could get out of his truck, but a lawn mower in the storage unit prevented the door from closing. After the two exchanged words, the woman lifted the door in order to move the lawn mower and close the door completely.

Inside the unit, the owner of the tools saw a snake bite kit that belonged to him, and called the police. While waiting for them to arrive, he walked around the woman’s vehicle and saw some of his tools and equipment inside. The defendant was sitting in the vehicle with the door locked.

Two officers arrived at the scene. The owner told one of the officers what he had seen in the storage unit and in the vehicle, and that he had noticed the defendant at the storage unit on the day the tools and equipment were placed in the adjacent unit.

After this conversation, the woman voluntarily opened the storage unit and the officer retrieved the snake bite kit. He then arrested the woman and the defendant and inventoried their vehicle.

During the vehicle inventory, a knife was found under the driver’s seat. The detective asked whose knife it was, and the defendant answered that it belonged to him.

It was later determined that the woman owned the vehicle, and that the defendant’s only connection to the stolen property was his presence in the vehicle. The officers could not remember when the defendant was given Miranda warnings, and testified that it might not have been until after the discovery of the knife.

The defendant moved to suppress the knife and the statement he made after he had been arrested. The trial court denied the motion; the defendant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a weapon, and he appealed.

Holding: A peace officer may arrest without a warrant if an offense is committed in his or her presence or view. Probable cause for such an arrest is established when “police have reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a reasonable person to believe a particular person has committed or is committing an offense.”

Unexplained possession of recently stolen property may support an inference that the possessor knew the property was stolen. The defendant claims the officer did not have the kind of reliable information necessary to warrant a belief that he was in possession of recently stolen property.

The officer had been told by the owner of the stolen property that the defendant was present the day the tools and equipment were moved into the storage unit. This information, coupled with the defendant’s presence in the vehicle where recently stolen property was found, established probable cause to support his arrest.

The inventory of the vehicle that uncovered the knife was justified by the arrest of the vehicle’s owner. Therefore, it was not error for the trial court to deny the motion to suppress the knife.

When the defendant was arrested, he was “in custody” for purposes of Miranda, and could not be questioned until he had been warned. “Interrogation” is any express questioning known by officers to be reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.

The question the deputy asked about the ownership of the knife was “designed to elicit an incriminating response” from the defendant or his companion. Because he had not been given Miranda warnings, his response to the question should have been suppressed.

It was not harmless to admit the defendant’s statement. Although the defendant waived his right to trial and entered a guilty plea, the denial of the suppression motion “undoubtedly contributed in some measure to the State’s leverage in the plea bargaining process.” Castleberry v. State, No. 04-02-00293 (Tex. App. – San Antonio, 12-24-02.

Serviceman's Prayer

Lord, hold our troops in Your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us. Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen

Of all the gifts you could give a U. S. serviceman, prayer is the very best one.

National "Do Not Call" Registry

March 25, 2003—The Federal Trade Commission today released its schedule for creating and implementing the national "do not call" registry. The registry will give consumers a choice about whether to receive most telemarketing calls. Beginning in July, consumers will be able to put their telephone numbers on the national registry, which telemarketers subsequently will be required to access. As of October, it will be illegal for most telemarketers to call a number listed on the registry.

When registration opens in July, consumers can register for free in two ways: online or by telephone. The FTC will announce the Web site URL for online registration and the toll-free number in June. To better manage the anticipated volume of registrations, initial sign-up by phone for the registry will be phased in, region-by-region, over an eight-week period. Online registration will be available immediately throughout the United States in July. Consumers' names will remain on the registry for five years, or until they change their phone number. At that point, consumers will be able to renew their registration.

The registry will be available to telemarketers and other sellers in September 2003, and they will be required to "scrub" their call lists against the names on the registry at least once every 90 days. In October 2003, the FTC and the States will begin enforcing the national "do not call" provisions of the Amended TSR. Violators will be subject to a fine of up to $11,000 per violation. Consumers listed should begin to receive fewer unwanted telemarketing calls approximately three months after they register.

Consumers can visit www.ftc.gov/donotcall for more information.

From the Chaplain

Isn’t it strange…

Isn’t it strange how a twenty dollar bill seems like such a large amount when you donate it to church, but such a small amount when you go shopping?

Isn’t it strange how two hours seem so long when you’re in church, and how short they seem when you’re watching a good movie?

Isn’t it strange that you can’t find a word to say when you’re praying but you have no trouble thinking what to talk about with a friend?

Isn’t is strange how difficult and boring it is to read one chapter of the Bible, but how easy it is to read 100 pages of a popular novel?

Isn’t it strange how everyone wants front row ticket to concerts or games, but they do whatever is possible to sit on the last row in church?

Isn’t it strange how we need to know about an event for church two or three weeks before the day so we can include it on our agenda, but we can adjust it for other events the last minute?

Isn’t it strange how difficult it is to learn a fact about God to share it with others, but how easy it is to learn, understand, extend and repeat gossip?

Isn’t it strange how we believe everything that magazines and newspapers say, but we question the words in the Bible?

Isn’t it strange how everyone wants a place in heaven, but they don’t want to believe, do or say anything to get there?

Isn’t it strange how we send jokes in e-mails and they are forwarded right away, but when we are going to send messages about God, we think about it twice before we share it with others?

IT’S STRANGE ISN’T IT?