State v. Baldwin

Citation614 S.W.3d 411
Decision Date10 December 2020
Docket NumberNO. 14-19-00154-CR,14-19-00154-CR
Parties The STATE of Texas, Appellant v. John Wesley BALDWIN, Appellee
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

EN BANC MAJORITY OPINION

Frances Bourliot, Justice

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress. In August 2020, a panel of this court reversed the trial court's suppression order as to cellphone evidence and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Appellee John Wesley Baldwin filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for en banc reconsideration. A majority of the en banc court voted to grant the motion for en banc reconsideration, and the en banc court has reconsidered this appeal. Today, the en banc court withdraws the majority opinion, vacates the judgment of August 6, 2020, and issues this en banc majority opinion and judgment.

We address whether a search-warrant affidavit set forth facts sufficient to establish probable cause for the search of a cellphone. The trial court ruled that the affidavit was insufficient and suppressed all evidence obtained from the cellphone. We affirm.

Background

While committing a robbery, two masked gunmen shot and killed a homeowner. The homeowner's brother witnessed the offense and said the offenders were Black men who fled the scene in a white, four-door sedan. Around that time, a neighbor observed a white, four door sedan exiting the neighborhood at a "very high rate of speed."

Investigators obtained security footage from a nearby residence which showed a white sedan in the neighborhood on the day before (and on the day of) the murder. Four times, the white sedan entered the street, which ended in a cul-de-sac, and circled the neighborhood where the murder later occurred. A neighbor told investigators that a white sedan had passed by his residence three times shortly before the murder. That neighbor could only describe the driver as a "large Black male."

Another neighbor said that she had seen a white, four-door sedan in the neighborhood on the day before the murder. She said she saw two Black men in the sedan. She took a picture of the sedan and captured the sedan's license plate. Based on this information, investigators learned that the sedan in the photo was registered to Baldwin's stepfather, who told investigators that he had sold the sedan to Baldwin and Baldwin was living at his girlfriend's apartment.

Investigators located the sedan at that apartment four days after the murder. Baldwin eventually drove away in the sedan, and investigators followed him in unmarked units but requested a marked unit to develop probable cause to stop Baldwin for a traffic violation. Officers in a marked unit eventually pulled Baldwin over for making an unsafe lane change. Baldwin was arrested for the traffic violation, for driving with an expired license, and for failing to show identification on demand. Investigators also impounded the sedan.

After his arrest, Baldwin gave a statement and consented to a search of the sedan. A cellphone was found in the sedan, but Baldwin would not consent to a cellphone search. Investigators applied for a warrant to search the cellphone, and a magistrate issued the search warrant.

Baldwin moved to suppress the evidence of his statements on the grounds that he did not commit a traffic violation and to suppress the cellphone evidence as fruit of the poisonous tree. Alternatively, Baldwin argued the affidavit in support of the search warrant was legally insufficient to support a finding of probable cause.

The Honorable Denise Collins held a hearing on the motion. After considering the evidence and arguments of counsel, she orally ruled that the traffic stop was lawful and denied the motion to suppress Baldwin's statements. As for the cellphone evidence, Judge Collins determined that the affidavit was insufficient to connect either Baldwin or his cellphone to the murder. Judge Collins ruled that the motion to suppress would be granted in part as to the cellphone evidence, but she did not reduce this ruling or any of her findings to writing before her term of office expired.

The Honorable Greg Glass succeeded Judge Collins. Judge Glass issued a written order on the motion to suppress granting the motion in its entirety without a hearing. Like his predecessor, Judge Glass did not make any written findings. The State brought this interlocutory appeal of Judge Glass's written order, challenging the suppression of the cellphone evidence and Baldwin's statements.

The original court panel set the case for submission with oral argument and raised its own set of concerns. The panel told the parties that the court could not address the sufficiency of the affidavit without first addressing the lawfulness of the traffic stop, because if the traffic stop had been unlawful, then all of the evidence would need to be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. The panel also explained that the court could not determine whether Judge Glass believed that the traffic stop was unlawful or whether he had intended to adopt the finding from Judge Collins that the traffic stop was lawful.

To settle these questions, the panel abated the appeal and remanded the case to Judge Glass with instructions to clarify the scope of his order. Upon remand, Judge Glass held a brief hearing, during which he explained that he had intended to adopt all of Judge Collins's rulings. Judge Glass signed an amended order granting the motion to suppress as to the cellphone evidence only and denying the motion as to Baldwin's statements. Accordingly, the amended order mooted all the State's issues on appeal except for the one concerning the cellphone evidence.

Analysis

The United States Constitution mandates that a warrant cannot issue "but upon probable cause" and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

U.S. Const. amend. IV. The core of this clause and its Texas equivalent is that a magistrate cannot issue a search warrant without first finding probable cause that a particular item will be found in a particular location. State v. Duarte , 389 S.W.3d 349, 354 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (citing U.S. Const. amend. IV and Tex. Const. art. I, § 9 ). Probable cause to support issuing a warrant exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a "fair probability" that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found. Id. This is a flexible, non-demanding standard. Id. But a magistrate's action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others; a magistrate cannot be a rubber stamp. Id.

We must conscientiously review the sufficiency of affidavits on which warrants are issued. See id. We may uphold a magistrate's probable cause determination only if the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. State v. McLain , 337 S.W.3d 268, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). When the trial court determines whether probable cause supported the magistrate's issuance of a search warrant, there are no credibility determinations, and the trial court is constrained by the four corners of the affidavit. Id. Although a magistrate may not baselessly presume facts that the affidavit does not support, he or she is permitted to make reasonable inferences from the facts recited in the affidavit. Foreman v. State , No. PD-1090-18, 613 S.W.3d 160, 162–64 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 25, 2020). Trial and appellate courts apply a highly deferential standard when reviewing a magistrate's decision to issue a warrant because of the constitutional preference for searches to be conducted pursuant to a warrant. Id. On appeal, we must interpret the affidavit in a commonsensical and realistic manner, recognizing that the magistrate may draw reasonable inferences and deferring to all reasonable inferences that a magistrate could have made. See id.

Nevertheless, an affidavit offered in support of a warrant to search the contents of a cellphone must "state the facts and circumstances that provide the applicant with probable cause to believe ... searching the telephone or device is likely to produce evidence in the investigation of ... criminal activity." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 18.0215(c)(5)(B). We have held that such an affidavit "must usually include facts that a cell phone was used during the crime or shortly before or after." Diaz v. State , 604 S.W.3d 595, 603 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. granted) (citing Foreman v. State , 561 S.W.3d 218, 237-38 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018) (en banc) (noting, in dicta, that "an affidavit offered in support of a warrant to search the contents of a cellphone must usually include facts that a cellphone was used during the crime or shortly before or after"), rev'd , No. PD-1090-18, 613 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 25, 2020) ).

We thus analyze whether there were sufficient facts in the affidavit to establish probable cause that a search of Baldwin's cellphone was likely to produce evidence in the investigation of the murder.1 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 18.0215(c)(5)(B). The affidavit did not contain any particularized facts connecting a cellphone to the offense, which we have required in other warrant cases involving cellphones. See, e.g., Diaz , 604 S.W.3d at 604 (in a case involving burglary during an aggravated assault, the magistrate could reasonably infer the perpetrators "possessed or utilized one or more cell phones before or during the planning or commission of the offense" because "several parts of one or more cell phones [were found] at the scene" and "the intruders' scheme [involved] pretending to be police officers [which] necessitated planning"); Aguirre v. State , 490 S.W.3d 102, 116 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (in a case for continuous sexual abuse of a young child, the affidavit established that the defendant had photographed the child complainant with a cellphone); Walker v. State , 494 S.W.3d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • July 27, 2021
    ... ... See e.g. , In the Interest of L.C.L. , 599 ... S.W.3d 79 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. denied); ... State v. Baldwin , 614 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. App.-Houston ... [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. granted). But the panel opinions were ... still allowed to ... ...
  • In re Munsch
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • December 10, 2020
  • Antee v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 26, 2022
    ...held that such an affidavit "must usually include facts that a cell phone was used during the crime or shortly before or after." Baldwin, 614 S.W.3d at 415 Diaz, 604 S.W.3d at 603). The affidavit in appellant's cases provides a variety of facts that connect the cell phone to the narcotics o......
  • State v. Baldwin
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • May 11, 2022
    ...opinion. Id. at 419. Justice Christopher filed a dissenting opinion joined by Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Jewell. Id. at 419, 422. of Appeals Opinions En Banc Majority Opinion The court below determined that the affidavit did not contain sufficient and particularized facts to ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT