# Bonds, Michael Ray

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · March 20, 2013 · 403 S.W.3d 867

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812263

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael Ray BONDS, Appellee v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** March 20, 2013
- **Citations:** 403 S.W.3d 867; 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 531; 2013 WL 1136522
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Meyers
- **Judges:** Keasler, Keller, Womack, Johnson, Hervey, Cochran, Alcala, Price, Meyers
- **Cited by:** 103 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812263

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812263. Public record. Not legal advice.