Background
On September 28, 2023, the Amarillo Police Department conducted a prostitution sting operation at a local motel. Officer Patricia Moreno posed as a sex worker. Phun Hram indicated he wished to pay for sexual intercourse with Moreno, and the two negotiated a price. Moreno then directed Hram to a hotel room where he was arrested and charged with solicitation of prostitution under Texas Penal Code § 43.021(a).
Prior to trial, Hram filed a motion to suppress, arguing that police violated the law by having an officer commit the offense of prostitution to provoke his solicitation, rendering all evidence inadmissible under the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Constitution, and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.23. The trial court denied the motion. Hram subsequently pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain and was sentenced to six months’ incarceration and a $300 fine.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court rejected Hram’s argument that evidence obtained when Officer Moreno committed prostitution must be suppressed. The court held that article 38.23(a), which excludes evidence obtained in violation of law, does not apply to statutory violations unrelated to protecting suspects’ constitutional rights against overzealous law enforcement. Because Moreno did not violate Hram’s rights—she was lawfully acting as an undercover officer—Hram lacked standing to challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained during the sting operation.
The court noted that accepting Hram’s interpretation would produce absurd results. It would require exclusion of testimony from an actual prostitute who agreed to perform a sexual act the defendant solicited, merely because the prostitute violated law. Additionally, the exclusionary rule contemplates that a crime has already been committed and officers violated law obtaining evidence of that previously committed crime. Here, evidence of Hram’s crime could not have been “obtained” prior to his commission of it, so Moreno’s actions did not violate the exclusionary rule’s purposes.
This decision clarifies the scope of Texas’s exclusionary rule and confirms that law enforcement may conduct undercover operations involving prostitution stings without evidence being suppressed on the theory that officers themselves committed a crime. The holding establishes that the exclusionary rule’s purpose—protecting suspects from overzealous law enforcement violations of rights—does not extend to statutory violations by undercover officers acting lawfully within their authority.
The decision has practical significance for law enforcement: it permits continued use of undercover prostitution stings as investigative tools without concern that evidence will be excluded merely because an officer posed as a sex worker. The court’s reasoning also prevents absurd statutory interpretations that would undermine law enforcement investigations.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.