It appears Rule 602 does not apply at a suppression hearing.

quote:

---

We also disagree with the court of appeals' implication that only the officer who actually observed the traffic violation can testify. Castro, 202 S.W.3d at 359, note 10. Hearsay information is sufficient to support a fact or an opinion at a suppression hearing. Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). While the officer who observed the traffic violation may be able to give more specific details regarding the reason for the stop, as we have stated, in the case of offenses requiring only an objective determination of whether the offense was indeed committed, the court does not need to know the subjective details of the stop from the officer's standpoint in order to find that the stop was reasonable.

---

Castro, No. PD-1635-06 (June 27, 2007)

This holding may change how those hearings are conducted.

This is sort of a strange analysis. I can understand in a PC determination that hearsay shoul dbe allowed, because what you are concerned about is not what did the defendant do, but what did the arresting/searching officer have probable cause to believe they did. But that's not the same as saying personal knowledge is not required at all: the officer must still have personal knowledge of the "probable cause." I.e., it is OK at a suppression hearing for an arresting officer to testify to what he was told, because that explains PC for the arrest. At a trial where the issue is whether or not the person actually committed the conduct described, the officer would not be able to testify over a hearsay objection.

Here, the Court seems to say that where the facts justifying the stop are objective, then the witness' actual observation is unnecessary, because the court does not need the details necessary to make a subjective reasonableness determination.

What concerns me is the idea that this reasoning might justify the State simply bringing in their investigator to say, "I've read the offense reports from the officers involved, and since all the facts necessary to the court's decision are objective facts, I'll just read them to you." I doubt the courts will stretch this ruling too far.

So I wouldn't rely on this opinion too much. Better practice is still to bring in the officer who made the stop.

All the court is saying is that the Rules of Evidence do not apply to a pretrial hearing. That is not the same as saying a judge could find there was probable cause based on facts known only to some nonarresting officer. In Granados, the CCA held that the TX R of E didn't apply, noticing what had been the rule for several years.

Granados determined that the rules of evidence don't apply to suppression hearings per TRE 101(d)(1)(a). If I have an offense report that gives enough details to sufficiently describe the basis for a traffic stop, then I don't call any witness at all. I've never been to a suppression hearing over a traffic stop that was nothing other than a fishing expedition and/or a free cross examination of my officer. If the officer writes a poor report that fails to adequately give details of the basis for making the stop, then he has to come testify at the hearing.

JB said,

That is not the same as saying a judge could find there was probable cause based on facts known only to some nonarresting officer.

I am curious about others opinions on whether an officer can simply read another officer's report and then testify to what he read about the incident. It seems to me that he could, since the only objection I could think of against such a practice is that it is hearsay. Am I wrong to belive that?

So some of you just enter the offense report into evidence as the sole evidence? That is a great idea...I have had to sit through some marathon hearings with no basis in law whatsoever. I'm curious, though, don't the defense attorneys argue that they want the officers to attempt to show the report is wrong?