Drug Crimes

What does it mean to use a "Fraudulent Prescription Form" in Texas?

The State of Texas charged and convicted Billie Jean Avery of attempting to obtain a controlled substance “through use of a fraudulent prescription form.” The evidence presented at trial, however, revealed that the defendant actually used a legitimate prescription form, but that she forged some data on her prescription information in an attempt to obtain stronger pain pills.

In her appeal to the 13th District Court of Appeals (Corpus Christie), Appellant argued that she could not be convicted of using a “fraudulent prescription form” when the prescription form she used was legitimate.  The Court of Appeals agreed and acquitted her of the offense.

On discretionary review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Court of Appeals’ affirmed judgment of acquittal. In a unanimous opinion, the CCA explained:

Just as tax information should be recorded on a tax form to create a competed tax return, so too prescription information should be recorded on a prescription form to create a completed prescription.  The information that is written on the form is not the form itself…[W]e hold that “prescription form” refers to a pre-printed form designed to have prescription information written on it.

This was a case of a simple charging error by the District Attorney's office, but it goes to show that attention to detail can win the day.

Fort Worth Drug Crimes Attorneys | Keller Southlake Drug Possession Defense Attorneys

Does the 4th Amendment apply to a Cell Phone Search?

Boy, do we love our cellphones.  They are our phone books, our computers, our gaming systems, our cameras, our music players, you name it.  When a person's cell phone is such a multifaceted device, how can that affect their legal rights under a search warrant?  Read the summary of the case below to find out more about how the 4th Amendment applies to a cell phone search.

United States v. Aguirre, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Federal), December 13, 2011

In this case, Appellant was convicted of using a communications facility to facilitate a drug trafficking crime in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b).  On appeal, she challenges the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence, claiming that the search and seizure of her cell phone was tainted by law enforcement officers’ illegal entry into a home where she was a guest.  The 5th Circuit found her arguments unpersuasive and affirmed the judgment.

Federal agents arrested a drug suspect shortly after he drove away from his home and they recovered marijuana and cocaine from his car.  The agents went back to the suspect’s home to conduct a knock and talk interview with the remaining occupants.  After knocking on the door and announcing themselves, the agents received no verbal response but did see a person look through the window, then quickly retreat toward the back of the home.  Fearing the destruction of drug evidence, the officers immediately entered the home without a warrant or consent.  Once inside the home the agents saw marijuana and drug paraphernalia in plain sight.  The agents secured the home and the occupants while they applied for a search warrant.  After obtaining the search warrant, the agents searched Appellant’s cell phone that was lying in plain view on a bed, and discovered several incriminating text messages.

The court held that the agents’ warrantless entry into the home was lawful.  First, they had probable cause to believe it contained evidence of illegal drugs and drug dealing.  Agents had just arrested the first drug suspect, after watching him leave the home, and had recovered marijuana and cocaine from his car.  Second, after knocking and announcing their presence, the reaction of the remaining occupants reasonably caused the agents to believe that evidence was being destroyed.  The agents’ entry into the home was justified by the exigent circumstance of destruction of evidence and supported by probable cause.

Appellant argued that the search and seizure of her cell phone was improper because the warrant did not particularly describe it as one of the items to be seized.  The court noted that while the Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized, each item does not need to be precisely described in the warrant.  The particularity requirement can be satisfied where a seized item is not specifically named in the warrant, but the functional equivalent of other items are adequately described.  Here, the agents were authorized to search for items used to facilitate drug trafficking to include records, correspondence, address books and telephone directories.  While this list did not include cell phones, the court held that cellular text messages, the directory and call logs of Appellant’s cell phone could be characterized as the functional equivalent of several items included in the search warrant such as: correspondence, address books and telephone directories.  Appellant’s cell phone served as the equivalent of records and documentation of sales or other drug activities and as such, the agents lawfully searched it under the authority of the search warrant.

I suppose this ruling was just a matter of time in our iPhone culture.

Out near El Paso, the law enforcement folks are pretty anal about boundaries.  Apparently, their “border-protection” mentality applies equally to law enforcement officers from neighboring jurisdictions.  Below is a summary from a federal quarrel between officers of El Paso and Hudspeth Counties.  While it isn't directly on point for this blog, it is tangentially related to Texas criminal law and it has a little bit of 4th amendment seizure flavor to it.

Short v. West, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals - November 2, 2011

Appellant was an officer in the El Paso Police Department, (EPPD) assigned to a narcotics task force for the 34th Judicial District. The 34th Judicial District includes both El Paso and Hudspeth counties. While conducting a task force related traffic stop in Hudspeth County, appellant encountered a Hudspeth County Sheriff Department (HCSD) deputy who asked him what he was doing there.  Appellant identified himself to the satisfaction of the deputy and told her that EPPD task force officers were working in Hudspeth County.  The deputy contacted her dispatcher who in turn called Hudspeth County Sheriff West and told him that EPPD officers were performing traffic stops in Hudspeth County.  Sheriff West ordered his deputies and find out whether the EPPD officers were, in fact, law enforcement officers.  Sheriff West also ordered his deputies to round up the EPPD task force officers and escort them to his office.

A lieutenant in the HCSD located appellant’s supervisor, who produced identification showing him to be an officer with the EPPD and the task force.  Appellant’s supervisor ordered him and the other task force members to return to El Paso County.  While on the way back to El Paso County, appellant and several task force members were stopped and surrounded by HCSD deputies.  The HCSD deputies ordered appellant and the other task force members to go to a nearby HCSD substation.  They were told that they would be arrested if they failed to comply.  Appellant and the task force members went to the HCSD substation where Sheriff West complained that he had not been notified of the task activities in his county. He then told the task force officers that they were free to leave.  Appellant sued Sheriff West under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment.

The court held that Sheriff West was not entitled to qualified immunity.  First, the court found that appellant was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. The HCSD deputies surrounded the task force officers’ vehicles preventing them from returning to El Paso County.  In addition, appellant was threatened with arrest if he did not accompany the deputies to the HCSD substation.  A reasonable person would not feel free to ignore such a show of force and go about his business.

Second, the court found that such a seizure was objectively unreasonable.  Sheriff West ordered the task force officers to be detained and brought to the HCSD substation so he could personally examine them. This was not likely to quickly confirm or dispel his suspicions as to whether or not the task force officers were legitimate law enforcement officers.  There were less intrusive ways to accomplish this.  Sheriff West could have contacted the EPPD Chief, whom he knew or he could have run the license plates on the task force officers’ vehicles. It was unreasonable to not recognize or pursue these options as alternatives to seizing Short.

Supreme Court Case Review -  Kentucky v. King, opinion dated May 16, 2011:

Officers set up a controlled buy of crack cocaine outside an apartment complex. After the deal, the suspect went into the apartment building. Officers followed the suspect into a breezeway where they saw two apartments, one on the left and one on the right. The officers did not see which apartment the suspect entered. The officers smelled marijuana smoke emanating from the apartment on the left as they approached the door.

Knock and Announce

One of the officers knocked loudly on the door an announced, “Police, police, police.” The officers did not demand entry or threaten to break down the door. As soon as the officer started banging on the door, he heard noises that led him to believe that drug related evidence was being destroyed inside the apartment. At this point, the officers announced they were going to enter the apartment and they kicked down the door. Once inside the apartment the officers performed a protective sweep and recovered marijuana and powder cocaine in plain view. Officers eventually entered the apartment on the right and found the suspected drug dealer who was the initial target of their investigation.

One well recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies when the exigencies of the situation makes the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence has been identified as one of the exigencies that may justify the warrantless search of a home. Where, as here, the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable.

When officers who do not have a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen might do, and the occupant has no obligation to open the door or speak to them. It was only after the officers knocked on the door and announced, “Police, police, police,” did the exigency arise. Because the officers did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment by demanding entry, or threatening to enter the apartment, the court held that the exigency that arose afterward justified the officers’ warrantless entry into the apartment.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently heard a case involving excessive force by police.

In, Hereford v. State the ultimate issue presented to the CCA was whether forced used by officers to recover drugs from a defendant was excessive and unreasonable. The court held that it was.

The appellant in Hereford pulled into a parking lot and got out of his car. An officer observed him and recognized him as someone he had dealt with in the past. The officer knew Hereford had outstanding warrants. The officer conducted a pat down search and arrested him for the warrants. After appellant was arrested, the officer searched his vehicle. When the officer did not find any narcotics, he called a K9 unit whose dog alerted on the car.  Despite the alert, officers again failed to find any narcotics. When the officer returned to his patrol unit, appellant had his head down and was chewing on something. The officer commanded appellant to spit it out but he refused. The officer and two others then removed appellant from the patrol unit and tased him on the leg. The officer who made initial contact with appellant then grabbed him around the throat and tried to force him to spit out the substance. The officers then ceased trying to force the appellant to spit out the substance. After discussing their options for fifteen to twenty minutes, the officers decided to take the appellant to the hospital.

At the hospital, the officers appellant over to another officer working off-duty at the hospital. Appellant still had the substance in his mouth.  The hospital tried to get him to release it by using ammonia capsules. This did not work. The off-duty officer then took appellant into an examining room and began to tase him repeatedly – three times in the upper inner thigh (the groin) and once in the right forearm. When he was being tased, appellant's mouth would open involuntarily.  While appellant's mouth was open (during the tasing of his groin) the officer was able to get the substance out of his mouth.  It turned out to be a plastic baggie of crack cocaine.

The issue presented for the CCA was whether, under the Fourth Amendment, the manner in which the evidence that was seized was reasonable. The court used the factors found in Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985) to balance the intrusion to the appellant’s personal interests, the societal need for effective law enforcement, and the state’s need for evidence. Those factors include whether the police conduct:

1. threatened the suspect’s health or safety;
2. conformed to accepted medical practices;
3. was performed by a trained professional;
4. arose from the existence of probable cause to believe the suspect had evidence of a crime;
5. unduly intruded upon the suspect’s dignity interests in personal privacy; and
6. was a commonplace procedure to which individuals are often subjected.

Balancing those interests, the court found that the off-duty officer’s actions were unreasonable and violated appellant's Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The CA, however, made it a point to highlight that this ruling was not to be construed to imply that the use of a Taser in these types of instances is per se unreasonable. The Court highlighted Ellis v. Columbus City Police Dep’t, No. 1:07CV123-A-A, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95821 (N.D.Miss. September 15, 2009), where almost the same set of circumstances happened.  In that case though, the suspect had lunged at officers and was openly chewing a plastic bag of cocaine. The Court differentiated that case from this one by explaining that in Ellis, the officers stopped after tasing appellant several times and the tasing occurred during the arrest (not long after and by another officer).

Presiding Judge Keller dissented without opinion.