I have a motion to suppress hearing where the D is challenging the misdemeanor arrest which led to the discovery of drugs in his car. He says no PC, but he already pled to the misdemeanor offense in JP court. Can he still challenge the pc on the felony? (My wish is that he can't, but after reading some of the DWI cases where the ALR hearings went south for DPS, but the CA or DA could still prosecute the DWI, I think he still can.) Help.

My guess is that although the defendant has acknowledged guilt, since that fact was not known to the officer, it does not serve to justify the original detention. We are looking to the facts known to the officer, not the defendant.

I assume you had (1) an arrest for something like public intoxication which (2) led to a search incident to arrest that discovered drugs and (3) the defendant pled guilty to the misd and now (4) wants to claim he couldn't even be arrested for the misd.

If you want a discussion on how collateral estoppel might apply you could look at Lafave 5 CRIM PROC § 17.4(a):

Can collateral estoppel operate against the defendant, so that if defendant Ashe had been convicted at his first trial he would have been barred from making a mistaken identity defense at the second trial? Some authority to this effect is to be found,[FN56] and one commentator has favored such a result and asserted that “there is no constitutional right” to avoid such a reverse twist of Ashe.[FN57] But the prevailing view is to the contrary,[FN58] and the Supreme Court has assumed that the result in such circumstances is so apparent as not to require extended discussion. In Simpson v. Florida,[FN59]

A landowner calls law enf. on a trespasser, who appears high/drunk/crazy. Deputy arrives to property, sees D in car & identifies himself. D makes a furtive movement under car seat, so deputy pulls him out and handcuffs him. Back up arrives & 2nd deputy sweeps the car for weapons. 2nd deputy finds meth pipe. D taken to jail on public intox (isolated ranch not public) & poss of meth. So now DL is arguing that since D was arrested for PI and land isn't public, nothing should come in. DL also arging that since D was already handcuffed, deputy didn't need to search car for weapons. I was just asking about the collateral estoppel issue as a "back up." I'm arguing that officer had reas suspicion to approach D (landowner's call about trespasser) and reason for sweep and detaining D was his furtive movements (classic Terry and progeny). I guess I'll see how it goes.

Could the defendant respond by seeking a de novo review of the JP case in county court?

Isn't there an argument that if this trespasser made it to the property, it is accessible by public and therefore meets p.i. requirements as far as an unwelcome visitor goes? The caselaw that talks about private subdivisions says something along the lines that if there are people on the location that don't belong, it is not completely private, so is considered public for DWI rules. Doesn't seem like someone ought to be able to trespass on someone else's property and then claim they were not in "public." Something along the lines of you can't benefit from your own criminal behavior--you can be intoxicated in your home (private to you) or in someone's home where you are a guest (private to you and owner) but why on a stranger's land? 899 S.W.2d 443 is the Air Force Base case--not on point some language that is helpful.

Alex -- He pled guilty to the PI about 6 months ago. I guess he could try, but I'm not really too worried about the Class C. He has already paid with jail time.
Suzanne -- Thanks for the idea. I'm looking up that case now.

If the D was committing trespass in the officer's presence, can't the search be justified as incident to lawful arrest and/or inventory? The fact that a different case was filed doesn't negate the pc to arrest for trespass.

That's my argument. The officer could have charged him with murder or anything else (MAYBE couldn't get a guilty on anything like that) but the PI charge here is irrelevant. Officer had reasonable suspicion to approach D based on landowner's call and officer's observation. When D made furtive movement, Officer was justified in conducting a protective sweep for weapons and temporarily detaining D. Meth& pipe were found in area where D made furtive movement. (It's not like they found the drugs in the tire well, or some other place that wasn't in D's arm's reach.) I think I should prevail, but let's see what the judge thinks.