Mason v. State, 13-91-574-CR
Decision Date | 30 July 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 13-91-574-CR,13-91-574-CR |
Citation | 838 S.W.2d 657 |
Parties | Thomas O. MASON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Manske, Manske & Manske, El Campo, for appellant.
Daniel W. Shindler, Dist. Atty., Bay City, and Robinson C. Ramsey, Wharton, for appellee.
Before FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA, Jr., KENNEDY and SEERDEN, JJ.
Thomas O. Mason appeals his probation revocation. By five points of error, he complains that the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
The AppleTree grocery store on Boling Highway in Wharton, Texas has a drop off point for United Parcel Service. On August 21, 1991, Donald Janik, an AppleTree employee, contacted the Wharton police and told them that he suspected appellant had dropped off a parcel containing illegal drugs. The parcel indicated that it was from Tommy Mason, # 26 Bernstein Dr., Wharton, Tx. Officers Guin and Kueker arrived at the AppleTree store ten minutes later, at 4:00 o'clock p.m. Janik took the package and some other boxes to the back of the store and lined them up against a wall. Some of the boxes contained grocery items while others were empty. Janik told Kueker that Mason's former wife was his first cousin, that he knew Mason had been convicted of possession of methamphetamine, that this was the seventh package Mason had forwarded to the same address in Oklahoma since May 19, 1991, and that Mason claimed each package contained an automobile alarm.
During this time period, the UPS driver arrived to collect the day's parcels. Since AppleTree has the option to hold suspicious parcels, Janik instructed an AppleTree employee to tell the driver that no packages were to be sent that day.
Five minutes later, Officer Lynch arrived with Bo, a narcotics dog. Bo alerted on appellant's package, and the police seized it. Officer Kueker completed an affidavit for a search warrant, stating:
4. AFFIANT HAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOE [sic] THE SAID BELIEF BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS, TO-WIT: Affiant is a Police Officer as described in Article 2.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Affiant has been employed as a Peace Officer for 10 years and is currently assigned as a Narcotics Investigator with the Wharton Police Department. Affiant has received specific training in the investigation of Narcotic related crimes. On August 21, 1991[,] affiant was contacted by Donald Janik, manager of the AppleTree Store located at 115 E. Boling Highway. Mr. Janik stated that the store is a UPS Express Shipping Center. Mr. Janik stated that a white male personally known to him as Tommy Mason, brought in a package to be shipped UPS. Mr. Janik stated that this was the seventh package Mr. Mason has shipped to the same person at the same address since May 19, 1991, and each time the items was [sic] said to be an Automobile Alarm. Mr. Janik stated that he knows Mr. Mason has reputation on being involved in drug related activities and has been convicted of possession of Methamphetamine. Mr. Janik stated that as he knows Mr. Mason's last occupation was a truck driver. Mr. Janik stated that based on this information, he believes Mr. Mason is shipping narcotics by way of UPS. Affiant went to the AppleTree Store and met with Mr. Janik. The package was labeled, from Tommy Mason to Judy Hulsey, for next day air delivery. Affiant checked the shipping records and found that Mr. Mason had shipped six other packages to Judy Hulsey on April 19, 1991, May 1, 1991, May 16, 1991, May 28, 1991, June 12, 1991, and June 23, 1991. Mr. Janik has no known criminal record. Affiant has personal knowledge of Mr. Janik[']s reputation in the community as a law abiding and trustworthy citizen. Mr. Janik took the package to the back room of the store where it was placed on the floor with five other similar packages. Officer Terry Lynch and Narcotics Detector canine "Bo" were called to the store. Officer Lynch instructed "Bo" to sniff the public air around the six packages. "Bo" alerted on the suspected package, [sic] Mr. Mason left at the store to be shipped. Affiant has personal knowledge that Mr. Mason was arrested on October 3, 1989, for Possession of a Controlled Substance, to wit: Methamphetamine. A search warrant was issued on Mr. Mason's home, at # 26 Bernstein Dr. [,] Wharton, Texas. A subsequent search resulted in the seizure of chemicals, glassware, and other paraphernalia used in the manufacture of Methamphetamine. Mr. Mason was subsequently convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Officer Terry Lynch and "Bo" are both certified by the National Narcotic Detector Dog Association, Inc., in the detection of Marijuana, Cocaine, and Methamphetamine.
At 7:34 p.m. of August 21, 1991, Judge Baker issued a warrant, to which the affidavit was attached, which commanded officers
to enter the suspected place described in said Affidavit and to search for the personal property described in said Affidavit and to seize same and bring it before me and to arrest and bring before me each suspected party named in said Affidavit.
Officer Kueker then opened the package and found sealed glass jars containing methamphetamine. On August 27, 1991, the State filed a petition to revoke appellant's probation, alleging possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. The court issued a capias on that date.
Appellant moved to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant, alleging that 1) the affidavit failed to establish probable cause, 2) the issuing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scott v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole
...So.2d 1056 (Fla.1986); State ex rel. Juvenile Department of Multnomah County v. Rogers, 314 Or. 114, 836 P.2d 127 (1992); Mason v. State, 838 S.W.2d 657 (Tex.App.1992); State v. Lampman, 45 Wash.App. 228, 724 P.2d 1092 However, some of the federal courts that have declined to generally appl......
-
Commonwealth v. Arter
...are to be admitted.Id. at 1095 (emphasis original, internal footnotes and citations omitted).Appellant also cites Mason v. State, 838 S.W.2d 657, 659 (Tex. Ct. App. 1992) (recognizing that "[e]vidence that is obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible over objecti......
-
1997 -NMCA- 90, State v. Marquart
...S.E.2d 205, 208 (1956); State ex rel. Juvenile Dep't v. Rogers, 314 Or. 114, 836 P.2d 127, 128-30 (1992) (en banc); Mason v. State, 838 S.W.2d 657, 659-60 (Tex.App.1992); State v. Lampman, 45 Wash.App. 228, 724 P.2d 1092, 1095 ¶13 The State urges this Court to restrict application of the ex......
-
Ashcraft v. State
...2317, 2328, 2332-33, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); Johnson v. State, 803 S.W.2d 272, 289 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Mason v. State, 838 S.W.2d 657, 659-60 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref'd). Credibility, reliability, and basis of knowledge no longer need to be established by separate and indepe......
-
DWI Defense
...as a result of an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible over objection in a probation revocation hearing. [ Mason v. State , 838 S.W.2d 657, 659 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref’d ); Wilson v. State , 621 S.W.2d 799, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).] [§§14:117-14:119 Reserved] VII. ......
-
Punishment Phase
...obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure is not admissible at probation revocation hearings over objection. Mason v. State, 838 S.W.2d 657 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref’d ). CCP Art. 38.14 is inapplicable to revocations hearings and a probation may be revoked upon the ......
-
Table of Cases
...6:56.1.1, 6:56.1.5, 6:56.1.8, 6:71, 6:72.1, 6:72.5, 6:72.8 Mason v. State, 322 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), §11:71 Mason v. State, 838 S.W.2d 657 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref’d ), §20:96.9.6 Mason v. State, 905 S.W.2d 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), cert. denied , 516 U.S. 1051......
-
Punishment Phase
...obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure is not admissible at probation revocation hearings over objection. Mason v. State, 838 S.W.2d 657 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref’d ). CCP Art. 38.14 is inapplicable to revocations hearings and a probation may be revoked upon the ......