X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On Oct. 30, 1998, 17-year-old Shannon Berger entered the Mustang Lounge at the direction of her aunt, Berenice Berger, a Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission agent. Shannon Berger was to attempt to purchase an alcoholic beverage inside the bar as part of an undercover operation by the TABC. She was accompanied by another TABC agent, Daryl Darnell, who witnessed the events that occurred inside the bar. Appellant sold a beer to Shannon Berger, a minor, without asking for identification in violation of 106.03 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code. TABC agents detained the appellant and issued her a citation. Appellant filed a motion to suppress “any evidence acquired as a result of the actions” of the TABC officers. The appellant based this motion on the fact that there was a sign posted in the Mustang Lounge which prohibited any persons younger than 18 years of age from being on the premises. The appellant argued that, because Berger was 17 years old, she committed criminal trespass at the direction of the TABC agents by remaining on the property despite the existence of the sign. The appellant asserted that the actions of the TABC agents were illegal, and any evidence acquired by them as a result of their investigation should be suppressed according to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.23 and Article 1 9 of the Texas Constitution. A hearing on the motion was granted, and an associate judge granted the motion to suppress. The state appealed the judge’s order and requested a hearing de novo before the trial court, which subsequently denied the motion to suppress. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment on April 24, 2003. The state’s motion for rehearing was overruled, and the state subsequently filed a timely petition for discretionary review with this court. HOLDING:The decision of the court of appeals is reversed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals upholds the ruling of the trial court. The primary question in this case, as posed in the first ground for review, is whether a minor recruited by the TABC to enforce the provisions of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code through conducting a sting operation inside a bar, commits criminal trespass if the target establishment has posted a “no trespassing to those under 21″ sign. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 101.04 provides TABC officers with the authority to enter a licensed establishment at any time for an inspection without first notifying the owner or obtaining any sort of warrant, as long as they are performing duties given to them by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code. This section of the code also grants this right to the commission itself or authorized representatives of the commission. The court of appeals is correct when it points out that 101.04 does not expressly authorize TABC agents to recruit and use minors to enforce the provisions of the code. The Court of Criminal Appeals considers the purpose behind the code. Two sections relating to minors are informative in trying to discern whether minors acting under TABC authority are criminal trespassers in this situation. Section 106.05, entitled “Possession of Alcohol by a Minor,” states that a minor commits an offense if he or she possesses an alcoholic beverage, subject only to several exceptions listed. The exception relevant to this inquiry is the following: the minor may possess an alcoholic beverage “if the minor is under the immediate supervision of a commissioned peace officer engaged in enforcing the provisions of this code.” This same exception can also be found in 106.02, “Purchase of Alcohol by a Minor.” This exception was created in a 1997 amendment by the 75th Legislature in H.B. 3441. The bill analysis makes it clear that lawmakers wanted to establish that the TABC had the explicit statutory authority to utilize minors to ferret out retailers who sell alcohol to children. The Legislature had a clear objective in mind which was to provide a way for the Alcoholic Beverage Code to be enforced; therefore they created a powerful enforcement mechanism by ensuring that minors could be used in undercover sting operations. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code provides that minors are not to be held criminally liable for possession or purchase of alcohol if they are assisting TABC officers in carrying out the provisions of the code. “It would be absurd for the Legislature to pass such legislation allowing minors purchase and possess alcohol to assist the TABC if they did not also intend for these minors to be able to have access to the targets of the sting operations without being criminally liable for trespass.” “[W]e assume that because minors in this situation act at the specific request of TABC officers, and on behalf of the TABC itself, to enforce the provisions of the TABC Code through sting operations, they should not be considered trespassers even in the face of a no trespassing sign.” OPINION:Meyers, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Price, Womack, Johnson, Hervey, Holcomb, and Cochran, J.J., joined. Keasler, J., concurred in the judgment. Keller, P.J., filed a concurring opinion.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.