A Bexar County judge paused a suppression hearing and ordered a review of video evidence after days of conflicting police testimony about an arrest and search at the River Center Mall parking garage.

State witnesses testified officers responded to a welfare check at 849 East Commerce, observed a person on the garage ledge and then detained him on the ground level. Officer Joel Silva testified officers saw the person discard a pair of metal shears in a trash can, smelled alcohol on the individual and recovered a can of alcohol from a hoodie pocket; Silva testified he believed the defendant was 18 and that the officers later found vape pens and other items in a backpack.

Defense counsel told the court the footage shows officers “grabbed the defendant and claimed he smelled like alcohol” before the officer reached into the hoodie pocket, calling the action “beyond a mere pack down” and “in fact a search without any reason to believe that there was a weapon.” The defense argued officers’ inconsistent testimony and failure to prepare required reports undermined their credibility and that the record did not show lawful grounds for a search incident to arrest at the time the pocket was accessed.

State counsel urged that officers had reasonable grounds to detain and to search incident to arrest once the defendant’s age and possession were confirmed, and noted that evidence recovered from the person and backpack informed the arrest. In argument the state cited case law distinguishing routine citation situations from a search where additional evidence of an offense could be discovered.

Officer April O'Neil and Officer Grant Rudeman also testified for the state. O'Neil described approaching the top level of the parking garage and later observing the subject being detained on the sidewalk; Rudeman described self-assigning to the welfare-check call and seeing the person match the radio description. The State introduced officers’ body-worn camera footage into evidence without objection.

After hearing argument, the judge said she would review the video because the sound and visual evidence will assist in resolving disputes over what occurred when officers first made contact. The court set a follow-up hearing for the 18th, when the judge said she will rule on the motion to suppress.