The absence of a warrant in Brown's case means that the State may not rely on "good faith" to justify Cohea's arrest of Brown. See Oliver v. State, 10 S.W.3d 411, 416 n.3 (Tex. App.-Waco 2000, no pet.) (holding that State was unable to rely on good faith to justify arrest and subsequent search incident to arrest where it was unable to produce the warrant or other evidence demonstrating that the warrant was based on probable cause)
Despite this, appellant cites the Oliver case from this Court to demonstrate his motion to suppress should have been granted because the State failed to produce a valid arrest warrant for appellant. See generally 10 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, no pet.). In Oliver, the appellant objected in trial to the fact that the State did not produce the warrant and supporting affidavit on which it claimed to have arrested her. Austin v. State Id. at 414.
If such a verification reveals outstanding warrants, probable to cause to arrest exists. Haley v. State, 480 S.W.2d 644, 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Oliver v. State, 10 S.W.3d 411, 416 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, no pet.); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 15.26 (West 2005).
If the computer check shows an outstanding warrant for the individual's arrest, the officer has probable cause to arrest the individual. Haley v. State, 480 S.W.2d 644, 645 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Oliver v. State, 10 S.W.3d 411, 416 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, no pet.); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC ANN. art. 15.26 (Vernon 2005).
If the computer check shows an outstanding warrant for the individual's arrest, the officer has probable cause to arrest the individual. Haley v. State, 480 S.W.2d 644, 645 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Oliver v. State, 10 S.W.3d 411, 416 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, no pet.); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC ANN. art. 15.26 (Vernon 2005).
See United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 509 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc); Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54, 66-67 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). If the computer check shows an outstanding warrant for the driver's arrest, the officer has probable cause to arrest the driver. See Haley v. State, 480 S.W.2d 644, 645 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Oliver v. State, 10 S.W.3d 411, 416 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, no pet.); Tex. Code Crim.Proc Ann. art. 15.26 (Vernon 2005). Similarly, if an officer observes at traffic violation, he has probable cause to arrest the driver.
"[W]hen the State justifies an arrest on the basis of a warrant, it must produce the warrant and supporting affidavit to the trial court if the validity of the arrest is challenged." Oliver v. State, 10 S.W.3d 411, 414 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, no pet.), citing Etheridge v. State, 903 S.W.2d 1, 19 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). Accordingly, to the extent the items in Ray's purse were discovered as a result of her arrest by Rhodes pursuant to these outstanding warrants, those items were illegally obtained.
When the license check showed three outstanding warrants for appellant's arrest, Officer Boden had probable cause to arrest appellant. See Haley v. State, 480 S.W.2d 644, 645 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972) (probable cause "clearly existed" for arrest when check revealed outstanding warrants); Oliver v. State, 10 S.W.3d 411, 416 (Tex. App.-Waco 2000, no pet.) (same). Once Officer Boden arrested appellant, he had the authority to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle and to seize evidence that was in plain view. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 2864 (1981); State v. Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889, 892 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Pettigrew v. State, 908 S.W.2d 563, 570 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1995, pet. ref'd).
Even assuming an affirmative finding however, an acquittal will not necessarily follow if the State has other evidence of guilt obtained apart from the illegal search or seizure. See, e.g., Oliver v. State, 10 S.W.3d 411, 416 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, no pet.). Conversely, when as in Vrba's case the entirety of the State's case rests on the validity of a traffic stop, the trial court may properly instruct the jury that it must enter a verdict of acquittal if it finds that the facts do not provide a valid basis for the search or seizure.
The court then held a hearing outside the jury's presence on the propriety of the State's warrantless seizure of the paddle. See Oliver v. State, 10 S.W.3d 411, 414 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, no pet.) ("accused retains the right to object at trial to evidence she alleges to have been unlawfully seized"). The vast majority of Mitchell's testimony pertinent to this issue was given outside the jury's presence.