Texas v. Cruz (original by presiding judge keller)
Annotate this CaseA taco-stand operator was shot and killed in Austin. The police recovered a soft-drink bottle that a witness said had been handled by the shooter. The fingerprint was matched to an individual who was variously known as Jose Rodriguez, Jorge Negron, and Pablo Jaimes. This individual was, in fact, appellee Adelfo Cruz. Detective Jeff Greenwalt, the lead homicide investigator assigned to the murder case, secured an arrest warrant for the murder. He called the United States Marshals’ Office in Chicago and asked them to arrest appellee on a Illinois DUI warrant but also requested that no mention be made of the Texas warrant or the homicide investigation. Appellee was arrested on the DUI warrant and taken to a jail in Berwyn, a suburb of Chicago. Appellee was booked by local law enforcement, who asked appellee’s name, date of birth, phone number, and address. The answers to these questions were written on a standard form. Appellee gave his name as Jorge Negron and gave an address and date of birth. He did not give his phone number on initial book-in, but a phone number was later added to the form. Detective Greenwalt and partner Detective Frank Rodriguez, traveled from Texas to Illinois to the Berwyn jail. Appellee was placed in an interview room, and his interview with the Texas detectives was recorded. Before giving Miranda warnings, Detective Rodriguez introduced himself and asked appellee for his address and phone number and asked whether he had a cell phone. After asking these questions and receiving appellee’s responses, Detective Rodriguez read appellee the Miranda warnings. Appellee then asked to speak to an attorney, and the interview was terminated. Detective Greenwalt acknowledged at the motion-to-suppress hearing (and the trial court found) that he wanted to obtain appellee’s phone number to assist in determining appellee’s true identity, and to show through cell tower information where the phone (if it was a cell phone) was located on the date of the Austin murder. After the interview, Detectives Greenwalt and Rodriguez went to the address listed on the Berwyn booking form, and obtained permission from appellee’s girlfriend to search the residence. Detectives found a cell phone that appellee used and had a number that matched the number given in the interview. During the search, detectives discovered appellee’s birth certificate with his true name and date of birth. After returning to Austin, Detective Greenwalt obtained phone records that showed the phone was in Austin on the date of the murder and that phone calls hit cell towers close to the crime scene. Appellee moved to suppress information detectives discovered after the search in Berwyn. The State appealed the trial court’s ruling that the interview was inadmissible. The State argued that the questions during the interview, specifically, the questions relating to the cell-phone number, fell within the “booking” exception to the Miranda rule. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's suppression order, finding that the questions asked fell under a related but distinct exception to Miranda involving “routine inquiries normally attendant to arrest and custody.” The court found that the exception was satisfied because the questions were purely biographical and did not relate to an element of murder and because nothing in the record indicated that Detective Rodriguez should have known that the questions were likely to elicit an incriminating response. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, finding that there was no showing on this record that the questions were in any way connected with the filling out of an administrative form, since that information had been previously given to Berwyn authorities when appellee was initially booked. As such, the circumstances surrounding the interrogation showed that the questions were not reasonably related to an administrative purpose.
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.