State v. Elrod
Decision Date | 25 October 2017 |
Docket Number | PD-0705-16,PD-0706-16,NOS. PD-0704-16,S. PD-0704-16 |
Citation | 538 S.W.3d 551 |
Parties | The STATE of Texas v. Gordon Heath ELROD, Appellee |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Lawrence B. Mitchell, 11300 N. Central Expressway, Suite 408, Dallas, Texas 75243, for Appellant.
Brian P. Higginbothan, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Frank Crowley Courts Building, 133 N. Riverfront Boulevard, LB–19, Dallas, TX 75207, Stacey Soule, Austin, TX, for the State.
Appellee, Gordon Heath Elrod, was charged with fraudulent use or possession of identifying information1 and with two offenses of tampering with a governmental record.2 Appellee filed a motion to suppress evidence seized by Mesquite police officers after they executed a search warrant at his hotel room. The trial court granted Appellee's motion to suppress, finding that the affidavit in support of the search warrant did not establish probable cause. The Fifth Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed the trial court's order.3 We granted the State's petition for discretionary review.
We hold that the affidavit contained enough particularized facts given by a named informant to allow the magistrate to correctly determine that there was probable cause to issue a search warrant. The court of appeals erred by affirming the trial court's order granting Appellee's pretrial motion to suppress. We reverse the judgment of the Fifth Court of Appeals, vacate the trial court's order granting the motion to suppress, and remand the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Affiant, Investigator Smith with the Mesquite Police Department, provided the affidavit in support of the application for a search warrant to search Room 119 at the Executive Inn and Suites, located at 3447 E. Hwy 30, Mesquite, Texas. Smith attested to the following events in his affidavit presented to the magistrate that are pertinent to this appeal:
The magistrate issued the search warrant at approximately 10:35 a.m. on April 28, 2015, and it was executed that day. Appellee was arrested the following day on April 29, 2015, pursuant to an arrest warrant.7 Appellee filed a Motion to Suppress on or about July 31, 2015.
On August 28, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on Appellee's motion to suppress. Appellee testified regarding only the issue of standing to bring the motion. Appellee testified that he and his wife and children were renting room 119 in the Executive Inn, on Highway 30, in Mesquite, Texas. Defense counsel then offered into evidence the search warrant affidavit, urging the trial court to rule on the motion to suppress based on the four corners of the affidavit. There were no other witnesses presented, and there was no additional evidence offered.
Appellee claimed in his motion to suppress that the search warrant, under which tangible evidence was seized, was in violation of his rights under the Texas and United States Constitutions and thus invalid because the supporting affidavit did not reflect probable cause. Appellee urged in his motion that probable cause was lacking because (1) the affidavit lacked sufficient underlying facts which would lead a neutral and detached magistrate to conclude that the alleged contraband was at the designated location, and (2) the affidavit failed to state sufficient underlying information to establish the credibility of the facts alleged by the affiant.
At the motion to suppress hearing, Appellee argued that, looking at the four corners of the affidavit, nothing Stovall said was corroborated by any independent investigation by the police. He argued that Stovall was not a credible nor reliable informant, and that a tip by an informant of unknown reliability standing alone is insufficient to support probable cause for an affidavit.
The State responded that there was probable cause to support the magistrate's decision to issue the search warrant because (1) the tip came from a named informant, not an anonymous or confidential one, (2) it was made against Stovall's penal interest, (3) it was a detailed first-hand account of criminal activity, and (4) it was consistent with information the officers had observed for themselves.
For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the search warrant affidavit established sufficient probable cause to support the magistrate's decision to issue the search warrant.
"The core of the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause and its Texas equivalent is that a magistrate may not issue a search warrant without first finding ‘probable cause’ that a particular item will be found in a particular location."8 In determining whether a warrant sufficiently establishes probable cause, this Court is bound by the four corners of the affidavit.9 "[I]n interpreting affidavits for search warrants courts must do so in a common sense and realistic manner."10 "[P]robable cause exists when the facts and circumstances shown in the affidavit would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the items to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gonzalez v. State
...cause for a magistrate to approve a search warrant application. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 18.01 ; State v. Elrod , 538 S.W.3d 551, 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) ; Hughes v. State , 334 S.W.3d 379, 386 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, no pet.). The magistrate should have a clear basis on whi......
-
State v. Baldwin
...a high quantum of proof that nothing less than a hard certainty will suffice. That is plainly not the law. See State v. Elrod , 538 S.W.3d 551, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) ("The process of determining probable cause does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities.").At the same t......
-
Vardeman v. State
... ... whom the probable cause affidavit is presented is confined to ... considering the four corners of the search warrant affidavit, ... as well as to logical inferences the magistrate might draw ... based on the facts contained in the affidavit. See State ... v. Elrod , 538 S.W.3d 551, 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) ... ("[A]lthough the magistrate's determination of ... probable cause must be based on the facts contained within ... the four corners of the affidavit, the magistrate may use ... logic and common sense to make inferences based on ... ...
-
Longoria v. State
...probable cause, and appellant does not dispute that the warrant was issued on probable cause in this case. See State v. Elrod, 538 S.W.3d 551, 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) ("[P]robable cause exists when the facts and circumstances shown in the affidavit would warrant a man of reasonable cauti......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...or confidential informant), but is able to assess the named informant’s reliability based upon the details provided. State v. Elrod, 538 S.W.3d 551, 561-2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). The affidavit is not rendered insufficient merely because it alleges an informant has reported that a substance ......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...or confidential informant), but is able to assess the named informant’s reliability based upon the details provided. State v. Elrod, 538 S.W.3d 551, 561-2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). The affidavit is not rendered insufficient merely because it alleges an informant has reported that SEARCH AND S......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...or confidential informant), but is able to assess the named informant’s reliability based upon the details provided. State v. Elrod, 538 S.W.3d 551, 561-2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). The affidavit is not rendered insufficient merely because it alleges an informant has reported that a substance ......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...or confidential informant), but is able to assess the named informant’s reliability based upon the details provided. State v. Elrod, 538 S.W.3d 551, 561-2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). The affidavit is not rendered insufficient merely because it alleges an informant has reported that a substance ......