Opinion

Bonds, Michael Ray

  • 403 S.W.3d 867
  • 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 531
  • 2013 WL 1136522
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Filed
Mar 20, 2013
Status
Published
Author
Meyers
On the bench
Keasler, Keller, Womack, Johnson, Hervey, Cochran, Alcala, Price, Meyers
Cited by
103 cases

explaining that a magistrate should interpret an affidavit in a common- sense manner, drawing reasonable inferences from the circumstances presented

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that a magistrate should interpret an affidavit in a common- sense manner, drawing reasonable inferences from the circumstances presented
  • noting that a magistrate “may draw reasonable inferences solely from the facts and circumstances contained within the affidavit’s four corners”
  • either directly or through reasonable inference, affidavit satisfactorily established nexus between criminal activity, things to be seized, and place to be searched
  • warrant sufficiently limited officer’s discretion in executing warrant, whereas warrant failing to describe, at all, items to be seized lacked particularity on its face

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

MEYERS, J.,

filed a statement dissenting to the denial of Appellant’s motion for rehearing.

The court of appeals got it right in this case. The warrant was not supported by probable cause that the items identified would be found at the residence listed in the warrant. Additionally, the warrant did not describe the location to be searched with sufficient particularity to ensure that the officer searched the correct location or that the scope of the officer’s search was narrowed to the specific location listed in the warrant.

The majority discusses the officer’s familiarity with the residence, but I would think that an officer who was so familiar with the residence would at least get the address correct, even if he was unsure of the roof color. The majority also notes the significance of the officer’s testimony from the hearing on the motion to suppress that the location intended to be searched was the actual location searched. I’m sure the fact that methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were found at the actual location searched factored into that conclusion. I would grant Appellant’s motion for rehearing and reconsider our decision to reverse the court of appeals.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.