Did the officer have a right to search your vehicle if the officer in fact thought that there was a smell of marijuana? The case law is clear. If there is a smell of marijuana. >> All right. This is set for a motion to suppress state. Are you ready with witnesses? >> No, your honor. The witness that we need, Officer Lucio, formerly worked for Hollywood Park Hill Country Village. >> Hill Country Village. but no longer does so. He now works for Windress PD. I did not learn this information until Friday afternoon and was not able to request officer Lucio to be present. State requests a reset. If the court denies it, we'll discuss the missing witness. >> All right. Then what I'll do is this case is coming back uh this afternoon at 1:30 and it's going to proceed at 1:30. So you have till 1:30 to obtain your witness. >> Thank you, J. M. might be excused to 1/3. >> The case of state versus Simeon Alexander Neville reveals a troubling instance of an officer's lack of credibility undermining a legal proceeding. In this case, officer Lucio, formerly of Hill Country Village PD, stopped Neville for speeding, a valid reason confirmed by Neville's admission on the dash cam footage to driving 47 mph in a 30 mph zone. However, the officer's claim of smelling marijuana, which he used to justify searching Neville's vehicle, raised red flags. The court noted that during the initial interaction, which lasted several minutes, Luchio never mentioned marijuana. Only after returning to his vehicle, making phone calls, and stating, "I need PC for this vehicle." Did he claim to detect the smell of marijuana upon returning to Neville's car? The court interpreted PC as probable cause, suggesting Lucio was seeking a pretext to search rather than relying on genuine observations. This inconsistency led the judge to question the officer's truthfulness, highlighting how credibility is paramount in legal proceedings. In the record, in 2024, CR01124 State versus Simeon Alexander Neville. >> Yes, sir. >> Could I have parties announce for the record, please? For the state. >> For the defense, >> Robert Mau for defending, your honor. >> Okay. >> And are you Mr. Neville? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Uh, so yesterday we had a hearing on a motion to suppress. Uh the officer was called as a witness and you were also called as a witness. Uh the state entered into evidence without objection states exhibit number one which is a DVD of the stop of the vehicle and also the entirety of the interaction uh with the officer on the date of the alleged offense. And council, if you could give that to the court reporter so they can have it in their record, please. All right. The court reviewed uh states exhibit number one last night and also I reviewed it again this morning to make sure uh Oh, there's a lot of coming from that room. All right. The court reviewed it again this morning just to make sure that I had everything that I was looking for with regards to um states exhibit number one and also with regards to both the testimony of yourself and of the officer. All right, the court. That's a lot of noise. All right. When looking at the DVD and bearing in mind watching states exhibit number one, but also uh reviewing mentally the testimony of yourself and the officer. This is what the court finds. The stop was a legal stop. The stop was for speeding. Uh on states exhibit number one, you admit to uh going over the speed limit. The officer informed you of what the speed limit was. You informed the officer what you thought the speed limit was, but you admitted to the 47 m hour and I believe it was a 30 mph zone. Then the next question becomes, did the officer have a right to search your vehicle if the officer in fact thought that there was a smell of marijuana? The case law is clear. If there is a smell of marijuana, an officer is allowed to search the vehicle. They are allowed specifically to search the trunk if they so choose to search your trunk. In this case, they searched the trunk and they found uh what they believe to be illegal substances. So, the next question for the court becomes whether witnesses are credible or not, what the court viewed in states exhibit number one. And if someone is objecting to what the court re uh viewed and what the court is about to say, what is in states exhibit number one, please do not hesitate to let the court know. You are pulled over. You're at an apartment complex. You tell the officer that you are there to see your girlfriend. The officer discusses with you as he has a flashlight looking in your vehicle the reason for the stop, which was for the speeding, which you agreed you were speeding. The officer asks for your insurance and driver's license. You tell the officer that you have your insurance information on your phone, but you would like to speak with your girlfriend. The officer asks why you would like to speak with your girlfriend, and you state to him because, and I'm summarizing here, you state with him because your girlfriend was expecting you, and you just want to let your girlfriend know what is occurring. The officer tells you not to do that. You continue to look on your phone for your insurance. You tell the officer, "I promise you, I promise you, I do have insurance, but I got the insurance online and I am looking for it." The officer continues to speak with you and this goes on for several minute minutes. During that first contact with the officer, the officer does not mention whatsoever any smell of marijuana. The officer then leaves your vehicle and goes back to his vehicle and says he wants to check on something. The officer enters his vehicle and there are phone calls that are coming into him and he's making phone calls out on his screen that is in his vehicle. It appears to the court that he is running the vehicle. The court is unable to view exactly what is on the screen because the writing is very small and the video is not great. But when he runs your vehicle, the court sees that there are green lettering throughout the screen and he's clicking on a button and as he clicks on the button, the screen continues to go to what the court is assuming the next page and that is green. He remains in the vehicle. Another call comes in and then either he sends a call out or a call comes in to him and he lets them know what's going on and he says in the phone I need PC for this vehicle. Then once he requests PC for the vehicle, then I see the screen again and all of a sudden the screen comes up with a bunch of red writing. The court is making an assumption because neither party asked what he meant when he said, "I need PC of the vehicle." The court is assuming that that call was I need probable cause for this vehicle. Then after he does that, he gets out of his car, comes back to your car, and he shines the flashlight on you again, and he says, "Why are you looking at Wells Fargo?" And your response to him was, "I'm looking at Wells Fargo because that's where my insurance comes out each month. I swear to you, I have insurance." He allows you to do that. Then he says something to the effect of, "Let me be honest with you. I smell marijuana in your car and you have this box and you tell him that box is empty." He says, "Do you have any weapons or anything in the vehicle because I'm going to search your vehicle." And your response to him was, "I have a samurai sword." Just as a side note, why you have a samurai sword? I don't know, but that's what you tell him. So then he says, "Well, I smell marijuana. Get out of the car. I'm searching your entire vehicle." He takes you to the back of the vehicle. He proceeds to handcuff you and tells you, "You're not under arrest, but I'm doing it for my safety." Then he searches your vehicle. the court is going to find that the state's witness was not credible. And so I'm going to grant the motion to suppress, not based upon the fact that the search was improper or illegal. I'm basing it on the fact that the officer was not credible when the officer stated that he smelled marijuana in your car. And the reason for that is because on first contact with you and he was with you for several minutes, he never mentioned marijuana. The only time he mentioned marijuana is when he went to his car. He ran uh your vehicle the first time, then he ran it the second time after calling someone and saying that he needed PC on the vehicle. The court is assuming that PC means probable cause to search and he's looking for that and asking for them to give him PC. I could not understand or hear what conversation was going um with whatever party he was on the phone with. But if he's asking someone for PC to search your vehicle, that means in the court's mind that he wasn't credible when he said he said when he said he smelled marijuana. Anything else from either side? >> No, judge. >> No. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you, Judge. May be excused. >> Yes. The judge's decision to grant the motion to suppress in Neville's case underscores the judiciary's role in holding law enforcement accountable when their actions lack integrity. Under Texas law, specifically article 38.23 of the code of criminal procedure, no evidence obtained by an officer. In violation of any provisions of the constitution or laws shall be admitted in evidence against the accused. Here, the judge found that officer Lucio's claim of smelling marijuana was not credible, particularly because it surfaced only after he sought probable cause through a phone call, as evidenced by the dash cam footage. The court observed that Lucho's failure to mention marijuana during the initial interaction combined with his vague request for PC suggested he fabricated the justification for the search. By granting the motion to suppress, the judge ensured that evidence obtained through questionable means was excluded, protecting the defendant's rights. This ruling serves as a powerful reminder that law enforcement must operate transparently and truthfully or risk having their actions nullified, reinforcing public trust in a system that demands accountability from those sworn to uphold it. What do you think should happen to the cop for lying? Let me know in the comments. Like and subscribe for more police cam stories. Watch the next recommended video.