Armando Castillo v. State
14-16-00296-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Police investigated and surveilled a warehouse (suites 217–218 at 13940 Bammel North Houston Rd.) while attempting to execute an arrest warrant for Joseph Castillo.
- Agents observed a man they believed to be Joseph and a gray BMW tied to Joseph; surveillance continued before attempting an arrest.
- Officers had Napoleon Gonzalez’s name as the leaseholder; Napoleon’s son, Napoleon Ruiz, later knocked and was admitted to Suite 218 during police surveillance.
- Ruiz was asked to re-create a “special knock” and call someone inside; when a man (later identified as Justin Sutton) opened the garage door, officers ordered him to the ground and entered to conduct a protective sweep looking for Joseph.
- During the sweep officers observed firearms, cash, and ultimately bundles of marijuana; after securing a warrant, they seized 1,070 pounds of marijuana.
- Appellant (Armando Castillo) moved to suppress evidence as the product of an illegal knock-and-talk and protective sweep; the trial court denied the motion, appellant pleaded guilty, was sentenced, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant can challenge the warrantless entry/protective sweep of the warehouse | Castillo argued the knock-and-talk and resulting protective sweep were unlawful, so evidence discovered should be suppressed | State argued Castillo lacked standing to challenge the entry/search because he had no possessory or privacy interest in the warehouse | Court held Castillo lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the entry or sweep; motion to suppress properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (use of physical intrusion onto curtilage constitutes a search)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (physical intrusion on property can be a Fourth Amendment search)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Fourth Amendment rights are personal; cannot vicariously assert another’s rights)
- Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (standing is a prerequisite to a suppression claim)
- State v. Huse, 491 S.W.3d 833 (discussing theories of search: intrusion and reasonable-expectation-of-privacy)
- State v. Granville, 423 S.W.3d 399 (ownership/possessory interest normally establishes standing)
- Weems v. State, 493 S.W.3d 574 (standard of review for suppression rulings)