Bridges v. State, 56647
| Decision Date | 20 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 56647,No. 3,56647,3 |
| Citation | 574 S.W.2d 560 |
| Parties | James F. BRIDGES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ben D. Sudderth, Comanche, for appellant.
Lynn Ingalsbe, Dist. Atty., Abilene, for the State.
Before DOUGLAS, TOM G. DAVIS and VOLLERS, JJ.
James Bridges appeals from his conviction of aggravated robbery. The court, after finding that appellant had twice before been convicted of felony offenses, assessed punishment at life.
Appellant, in his sole ground of error, contends that the search warrant is invalid because it did not sufficiently describe the premises to be searched. The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.
On December 5, 1976, shortly before 8:00 p. m., David Smedley of the L & L Service Station in Abilene was robbed. Smedley was able to give police officers a description of the getaway car and the license plate number. Shortly thereafter, police arrested appellant at his residence at 2134 Hardy Street in Abilene. As appellant was placed under arrest, officers observed torn-up checks, made out to the L & L Service Station, on the floor. The officers then went before a magistrate to obtain a search warrant to search the house. A warrant was issued and executed. The officers seized various items used or taken in the robbery. The affidavit, which is incorporated in the warrant, describes the place to be searched as a "pink wood frame building having white trim located at 2134 Hardy" in Taylor County, Texas. It also indicates that the City of Abilene police officers had arrested appellant at that location and had just left there with the obvious intent of obtaining a search warrant.
Bridges argues that the description of the house is inadequate because it fails to specify the town in which 2134 Hardy is located. In response to repeated questioning on cross-examination, one of the officers who executed the warrant stated that he did not know if there was a 2134 Hardy address in several other communities in Taylor County.
Several of our previous cases bear directly on the issue before us. In Cruze v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 450, 25 S.W.2d 875 (1930), we held that a warrant which authorized the search of the residence and buildings "occupied by P. C. Cruze" in "Robertson County, Texas" was sufficient. In Helton v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 488, 300 S.W.2d 87 (1957), we were confronted with a warrant that described the place to be searched as a "residence" located in Dallas County at "719 Bonnie View." The divided Court in Helton overruled Cruze and held that the warrant was invalid because it did not specify in which city, in Dallas County, Bonnie View was located. Helton was written before Ex Parte Flores, 452 S.W.2d 443 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). Flores involved a warrant to search "Fred's R C Paint & Body Shop on the west side of Josephine Street in the 600 block directly behind 1501 Leopard Street" in Nueces County, Texas. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fifty-Six Thousand, Seven Hundred Dollars in U.S. Currency v. State
...275 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). Technical discrepancies in search warrants do not automatically vitiate their validity. Bridges v. State, 574 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). Even if the numerical address is wrong, the warrant may still be valid if the description is adequate to direct the off......
-
Long v. State
...be sufficient to enable executing officer to locate and distinguish the property from others in the community); Bridges v. State, 574 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex.Crim.App.1978) (description of place to be searched must be sufficiently specific to protect innocent parties from a reasonable probabil......
-
Smith v. State
...conflicting law, general statements of principle, and specific applications, we conclude that the controlling case is Bridges v. State, 574 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). The Bridges court considered the knowledge of the officers executing the warrant and used it to uphold the search. The ......
-
Adams v. State, NUMBER 13-17-00420-CR
...the warrant against an innocent third party." Green v. State, 799 S.W.2d 756, 757-58 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (citing Bridges v. State, 574 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)). Thus, the absence of a requirement will not invalidate a warrant provided "the record establishes that the officer wa......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...must also protect innocent parties from a reasonable probability of a mistaken execution of a defective warrant. Bridges v. State, 574 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The primary objectives of the descriptive averment are to: Direct the executing officer to the place to be searched C......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...must also protect innocent parties from a reasonable probability of a mistaken execution of a defective warrant. Bridges v. State, 574 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The primary objectives of the descriptive averment are to: Direct the executing officer to the place to be searched C......
-
Search and seizure: property
...must also protect innocent parties from a reasonable probability of a mistaken execution of a defective warrant. Bridges v. State, 574 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The primary objectives of the descriptive averment are to: • Direct the executing officer to the place to be searched • C......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...must also protect innocent parties from a reasonable probability of a mistaken execution of a defective warrant. Bridges v. State, 574 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The primary objectives of the descriptive averment are to: • Direct the executing officer to the place to be searched • C......