Sign In
Events
Newsletters
Search

Close

Close Search

Cancel

SEARCH
MY LAW.COMNEW

Hereford v. State

Appellant was arrested for misdemeanor traffic warrants. After the police placed appellant in the back of the police car, officers noticed that he was hiding something that they assumed was cocaine in his mouth. Officers were able to remove crack cocaine from appellant's mouth and hand after repeated use of Tasers and with the assistance of medical personnel. Appellant was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The jury found appellant guilty of the offense. The court of appeals reversed appellant's conviction and remanded the cause for a new trial. In its ruling, the court found that, given the totality of the circumstances, the force used by the officers to recover the drugs was excessive and unreasonable and held that the trial court had erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress, an error deemed harmful because it affected the outcome of the trial. The state's petition for discretionary review was granted to determine whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress and whether the repeated use of a Taser "to prevent a potentially fatal overdose" is inherently excessive and unreasonable. The court of appeals properly deferred to the trial court when the trial court's findings were supported by the record. The judgment of the court of appeals and its finding that the force used to seize evidence in this case was excessive and, therefore, unreasonable is affirmed. 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. PD-0144-10, 04-06-2011

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Johnson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which Meyers, Price, Keasler, Hervey, and Cochran, JJ., joined. Womack, J., concurred. Keller, P.J., dissented.

OPINION

Appellant was arrested for misdemeanor traffic warrants. After the police placed appellant in the back of the police car, officers noticed that he was hiding something that they assumed was cocaine in his mouth. Officers were able to remove crack cocaine from appellant’s mouth and hand after repeated use of Tasers and with the assistance of medical personnel. Appellant was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver: cocaine. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on his claims that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him and used unreasonable force to recover the drugs he held. The trial court denied appellant’s motion because the arrest of appellant was based on existing arrest warrants. During the guilt phase of trial, appellant renewed his suppression motion and objected to the admission of all of the state’s evidence derived from the officers’ actions. The trial court again denied appellant’s motion, but granted appellant’s running objection. The jury found appellant guilty of the offense charged and assessed appellant’s punishment at 50 years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.

Trending Stories

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

LEARN MORE

More From ALM

Premium Subscription
With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Team Accounts
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Bundle Subscriptions
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
Go to CLE Center
British Legal Awards 2024
November 27, 2024
London

Celebrating achievement, excellence, and innovation in the legal profession in the UK.


Learn More
GlobeSt. Healthcare Real Estate 2024
December 02, 2024 - December 03, 2024
Scottsdale, AZ

Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers and financiers for the real estate healthcare event of the year!


Learn More
ThinkAdvisor LUMINARIES Awards 2024
December 11, 2024
Las Vegas, NV

This event shines a spotlight on how individuals and firms are changing the investment advisory industry where it matters most.


Learn More
Go to Events Go to Webcasts
School Law Associate

We are seeking two attorneys with a minimum of two to three years of experience to join our prominent and thriving education law practice in...


Apply Now ›
Real Estate Litigation Associate - New York, NY

Description: Fox Rothschild has an opening in the New York office for a Real Estate Litigation Associate with three to six years of commerci...


Apply Now ›
Attorney - Insurance Defense

Downtown NY property and casualty defense law firm seeks a Litigation Associate with 3+ years' experience to become a part of our team! You ...


Apply Now ›
Go to Lawjobs

Breaking news and trends for law firm and legal departments about the evolving federal regulations in a volatile political climate.

Federal Legal News
Special Coverage
Surveys & Rankings
National Law Journal