CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 392,502
Regular Panel Decision

Love v. State

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and had his probation revoked due to an offense in cause no. 392,502. The appellant argued that the controlled substance was obtained through an illegal warrantless arrest and search conducted by Pasadena city police outside their jurisdictional limits in Houston. The court examined common-law rules, statutory interpretations (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 998 and 999), and Code of Criminal Procedure articles (e.g., art. 14.01(b)) concerning the territorial authority of city police officers. It concluded that city police do not possess general countywide or statewide warrantless arrest powers unless specific statutory exceptions (like hot pursuit) apply, which were not present in this case. Consequently, the court held that the Pasadena officers lacked the authority for the arrest and search, reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the cause for a new trial.

Warrantless ArrestPolice JurisdictionCity LimitsCountywide AuthorityControlled SubstanceSearch and SeizureCommon LawStatutory ConstructionTexas Code of Criminal ProcedureTexas Revised Civil Statutes
References
39
Case No. 06-02-00202-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2003

Jessie Lane Hitchcock v. State

Jessie Lane Hitchcock appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that law enforcement officials violated his constitutional and statutory rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Officers detected marihuana smoke and odor from a parked car, leading to a pat-down search of Hitchcock after one occupant fled. During the search, officers found a rock-like substance believed to be crack cocaine in Hitchcock's pocket. The court considered whether the search was justified under exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, specifically examining initial detention, Terry search, plain feel exception, inevitable discovery, and exigent circumstances. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the strong odor of marihuana provided probable cause for the search of Hitchcock's person.

Search and SeizureFourth AmendmentTexas ConstitutionMotion to SuppressProbable CauseWarrantless SearchExigent CircumstancesInvestigative DetentionTerry StopPlain Feel Exception
References
71
Case No. 01-19-00793-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Terry Wayne King II v. the State of Texas

The First District of Texas at Houston denied the State's motion for rehearing. The State sought to apply the third-party consent exception to a warrantless search of a semi-truck by Terry Wayne King II's employer, John Feltman, who acted as an agent of the police. The court found no express consent from Feltman to the police to search the truck and determined that the facts presented did not sufficiently establish Feltman's common authority over the vehicle to provide third-party consent. The court concluded that third-party consent was not an applicable theory of law in this case, and the State failed to meet its burden of proof.

Criminal LawMotion for RehearingWarrantless SearchThird-Party ConsentFourth AmendmentEmployer-EmployeeAgency LawSuppression of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. New York State Department of Labor

In this concurring opinion, Judge Abdus-Salaam argues against the majority's expansion of the workplace exception to the warrant requirement, asserting it infringes upon a government employee's reasonable expectation of privacy under the New York Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. The judge contends that placing a GPS device on a personal car to investigate workplace misconduct, even during work hours, requires a warrant. Citing cases like People v Weaver and United States v Jones, the opinion highlights the highly intrusive nature of GPS surveillance, which can reveal extensive personal information. It distinguishes the search of a personal vehicle from workplace searches permitted under O’Connor v Ortega, emphasizing that a personal car is outside the employer's control and traditional workplace boundaries. The opinion warns that allowing warrantless GPS tracking sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to widespread electronic surveillance of government employees based on a mere 'reasonableness' standard without judicial oversight.

GPS trackingWarrant requirementWorkplace exceptionFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionGovernment employeesPrivacy rightsWorkplace misconductElectronic surveillancePersonal vehicle search
References
11
Case No. M2016-00460-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2017

State of Tennessee v. Kalpesh Patel and Patikkumar v. Patel

The Defendants, Kalpesh Patel and Pratikkumar V. Patel, appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and solicitation to commit first-degree murder. The trial court had merged the solicitation convictions into the conspiracy convictions and sentenced each to fifteen years. On appeal, the Defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of their motions to suppress cell phone evidence from warrantless searches, and Kalpesh Patel contested his sentencing. The appellate court found that while the warrantless searches of the cell phones were unconstitutional, the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments on all counts.

ConspiracyFirst-Degree MurderSolicitationCell Phone SearchWarrantless SearchExclusionary RuleIndependent Source DoctrineGood Faith ExceptionIneffective Assistance of CounselSentencing
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Postall

This case addresses a motion to suppress property seized from the employment locker of a United States Postal Service police officer, who was indicted for murder. The central issue revolves around the reasonableness of a warrantless search of a public employee's locker and the applicability of Fourth Amendment and New York constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court found no probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or valid consent to justify the search. It ruled that administrative regulations cannot override constitutional rights and that the Postal Inspector's broad interpretation of search authority was insufficient. Consequently, the search was deemed unreasonable under both Federal and State law, leading to the suppression of the seized property.

Warrantless SearchExpectation of PrivacyPublic Employee LockerFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionSearch and SeizureMotion to SuppressUnited States Postal ServicePolice Officer MisconductWorkplace Search
References
12
Case No. 12-13-00041-CR, 12-13-00042-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2014

Davina Wilson Moore v. State

Davina Wilson Moore appealed her convictions for possession of a controlled substance (hydromorphone) and possession of marijuana in a drug-free zone. She raised five issues, including challenges to the indictment, a warrantless home search, exclusion of evidence, admission of evidence, and jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all counts. The court found that the indictment was sufficient, the warrantless search was justified by consent and exigent circumstances, the exclusion of her husband's confession was not an error, the admission of unsealed medicine vials was proper to rebut her defense of mistake, and there was no error in the jury charge regarding special instructions or a lesser-included offense.

Controlled substancesMarijuanaDrug offensesAppellate reviewSearch and seizureMotion to suppressEvidence admissibilityJury instructionsLegal procedureTexas law
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Tarazon-Silva

The defendants, Manuel Jose Tarazon-Silva and Ricardo Belkotosky-Gutierrez, filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. The Court ruled that law enforcement agents lacked reasonable suspicion for the initial Terry stops of the defendants' vehicles, thus suppressing all evidence derived from those stops, including identities, statements, vehicle searches, and key matching. However, for the subsequent searches of the Pelhem residence, Bay City Place residence, and Rojas Drive warehouse, the Court found the "good faith" exception inapplicable due to an AUSA's involvement in preparing the warrant affidavit. Despite this, after excising the tainted information, the Court determined that the affidavits for these searches still contained sufficient probable cause, primarily supported by a reliable confidential informant, agent surveillance, and a narcotics-sniffing canine's alert at the Pelhem residence's dryer vent, which was not considered a search as it occurred outside the curtilage. Therefore, the defendants' motion to suppress was partially granted for the vehicle stops but denied for the residence and warehouse searches.

Motion to SuppressFourth AmendmentReasonable SuspicionProbable CauseExclusionary RuleGood Faith ExceptionTerry StopDrug EnforcementCanine SniffCurtilage
References
56
Case No. 14-08-00037-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2009

Oluwole Ajayi Gabriel v. State

A jury found appellant OLUWOLE AJAYI GABRIEL guilty of theft of $200,000.00 or more, and the trial court assessed punishment at forty-five years confinement. Appellant raised four issues on appeal, contending errors in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of garbage and a private postal box, and alleging the search warrant for his residence and vehicles lacked probable cause. He also challenged the sufficiency of evidence for venue. The appellate court found no error, affirming the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no expectation of privacy in trash left for collection, that the postal box search was valid due to agency consent, and that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The court also found sufficient evidence to support venue in Fort Bend County.

theftFourth Amendmentmotion to suppresswarrantless searchprobable causesearch warrantvenuecredit card fraudprivate postal boxgarbage search
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gabriel v. State

The appellant was convicted of aggregated theft of over $200,000, involving a scheme of fraudulently obtained credit cards and false identities. On appeal, he challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from warrantless searches of his garbage and private postal box, arguing Fourth Amendment violations. He also contended the search warrant for his residence and vehicles lacked probable cause and disputed the sufficiency of evidence for venue in Fort Bend County. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the searches lawful, the warrant supported by probable cause, and venue properly established.

TheftCredit Card FraudFourth AmendmentMotion to SuppressWarrantless SearchGarbage SearchPostal Box SearchProbable CauseSearch WarrantVenue
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 1,346 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational