Simpson v. State

What This Case Is About

Willie James Simpson was convicted of felony possession of cocaine found during a search incident to his arrest for public intoxication. Simpson challenged the legality of the search, arguing that the officer lacked probable cause for the warrantless arrest. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the officer had sufficient probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances.

The Facts

Officer S.J. Ellis of the Houston Police Department was on patrol in southeast Houston when he observed Simpson arguing with a woman in the middle of the street. The woman approached the patrol car waving her arms frantically while Simpson yelled and cursed at her.

Ellis stepped out of his patrol car and attempted to separate the two. He observed that Simpson appeared highly intoxicated, with slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the smell of alcohol on his breath. Believing Simpson might pose a threat to himself or others, Ellis attempted to arrest him for public intoxication. When Ellis asked Simpson to place his hands on the patrol car, Simpson refused and pulled away, shouting at the officer to keep his hands off him. Ellis called for backup, subdued and handcuffed Simpson, and discovered a plastic bag containing cocaine in Simpson’s right front pants pocket during a search incident to arrest.

Simpson’s version differed substantially. He testified the dispute involved a failed drug transaction, that the cocaine never came into his possession, that he had not been drinking, and that no struggle occurred.

What the Court Decided

The court affirmed the conviction on all points of error. On the search issue, the court applied the probable cause standard from Beck v. Ohio: whether the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge at the moment of arrest were sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing the arrested person was committing an offense.

The court found that Ellis’s observations of Simpson’s physical manifestations of intoxication (slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, alcohol odor)—combined with evidence of potential danger (arguing violently in the middle of the street where vehicles posed a danger, and physically resisting arrest)—were sufficient to establish probable cause for public intoxication. Under Texas law, public intoxication requires not merely intoxication but intoxication to the extent that the person “may endanger himself or another.”

Because the arrest was lawful, the search incident to arrest was proper and the cocaine was admissible.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Probable cause is assessed from the officer’s perspective at the time. The court evaluates what the officer knew at the moment of arrest, not what later investigation revealed. If the officer observed signs of intoxication and dangerous behavior, probable cause likely existed.

Danger to self counts. Being intoxicated in a location where vehicles travel—like the middle of a street—can establish the “danger” element required for public intoxication arrests. Officers need not wait for an accident to occur.

Resistance strengthens probable cause. When a suspect physically resists arrest, it compounds the officer’s reasonable belief that the situation is dangerous and that the arrest is necessary.

Search incident to lawful arrest needs no additional justification. Once probable cause supports the arrest, officers may conduct a full search of the arrestee’s person without a warrant. Any contraband discovered is admissible.

Key Takeaway

When an officer observes signs of intoxication combined with behavior that creates a danger to the suspect or others—such as arguing violently in the middle of a street—probable cause exists for a public intoxication arrest. A search incident to that lawful arrest is constitutionally valid, and any evidence found is admissible. Challenging such a search in a § 1983 case requires showing that the officer lacked a reasonable basis to believe the suspect was intoxicated and dangerous at the time of arrest.