Texas v. Ortiz (Original)
Annotate this Case
During the course of a traffic stop, Appellee Octavio Ortiz made incriminating statements. The trial court suppressed the statements, finding that appellee was in custody when the statements were made and that he had not been properly Mirandized. The State appealed, and the Seventh Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, affirmed the trial court's determination that appellee was in custody when he made the incriminating statements. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition for discretionary review to examine the court of appeals' determination that the initial traffic stop had shifted into a custodial detention. Agreeing with the appellate court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.