481 S.W.3d 300
Tex. App.2015Background
- Gonzales was arrested for driving while intoxicated (third offense) and blood was drawn under a warrant; blood alcohol was .12.
- Gonzales moved to suppress blood evidence, challenging the warrant affidavit for lacking probable cause due to an unnamed witness (W1).
- At suppression and trial, Officer Magee testified he did not personally interview W1; he relied on information conveyed by another officer (Gratavski).
- Chavez, the actual witness who retrieved the keys, testified at trial about Gonzales’s intoxication and the events at the scene.
- The trial court denied suppression; Gonzales was convicted and sentenced, leading to the appeal challenging the warrant affidavit.
- The court held the four corners of the affidavit supported probable cause and extended Franks to material omissions; the omission was not material, so suppression was improper and the conviction affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause sufficiency from the affidavit | Gonzales argues W1 is insufficiently described to support probable cause. | State contends naming W1 is not required; bystander testimony suffices. | Probable cause satisfied; W1 could be inferred as a bystander with corroborating facts. |
| Franks omission and material omission analysis | Gonzales contends Magee's omission (not speaking to W1) is a material omission. | State argues it is an omission, not a misstatement, and Franks applies to omissions as well. | Franks applies to omissions; but the omitted fact was not material to probable cause; no suppression. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores v. State, 319 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (probable cause and totality of the circumstances standard)
- Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (deferential review of magistrate’s probable cause determination)
- Gates v. State, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality of the circumstances and reasonable inferences)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (informant reliability and corroboration considerations)
- Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (commonsense reading of affidavits; avoid hypertechnicalism)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requires showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth; materiality)
- Harris v. State, 227 S.W.3d 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Franks framework applied to omissions as needed)
- Emack v. State, 354 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (extension of Franks to omissions discussed)
- Aragon v. State, 229 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (Franks applicability discussed in Texas)
- Martin v. United States, 615 F.2d 318 (5th Cir. 1980) (Franks-like analysis for omissions/false statements)