Bonds, Michael Ray
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 531
Tex. Crim. App.2013Background
- Bonds challenged a search warrant issued for a residence at 401 Barker Street, Bowie, Montague County, Texas, describing the place and items to be seized (drugs, paraphernalia) and noting a garage and a camper; affidavit supported by the officer's experience and investigative steps.
- A credible informant told Ashburn in Nov 2007 that Bonds possessed methamphetamine and that methamphetamine was in Bonds’s home at 401 Barker Street; the informant identified Bonds from a photo lineup.
- Ashburn listed Bonds’s address as 401 Barker Street in DPS records and identified Bonds’s prior drug-related arrests, supporting a nexus to the residence.
- May 27, 2008; July 15, 2008; and August 5, 2008, garbage searches at 401 Barker yielded drug residue, paraphernalia, and a MasterCard addressed to Bonds at that address.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion, concluding probable cause existed despite minor errors in roof color and address, because Ashburn's personal knowledge and execution of the warrant identified the correct location.
- The court of appeals held the warrant lacked probable cause due to misdescription and lacked an object-place nexus, reversing and suppressing the evidence; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed that decision, finding probable cause and sufficient particularity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause sufficiency | Bonds contends affidavit lacks nexus linking location to crime. | State argues four-corners affidavit shows substantial basis; nexus exists. | Probable cause exists |
| Particularity sufficiency | Description of location is inaccurate and undermines particularity. | Officer familiarity and overall description sufficiently identifies target residence. | Location described with sufficient particularity |
| Impact of misdescription (address/roof color) | Errors render warrant facially invalid or unreasonably broad. | Minor inaccuracies do not defeat valid warrant given context and execution. | In this case, errors did not invalidate warrant |
| Officer knowledge and ambiguity | Ambiguity should be resolved against policing authority. | Ashburn’s familiarity with the location resolves ambiguity and narrows search. | Officer knowledge supports validity |
Key Cases Cited
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2004) (invalid warrant due to failure to describe items to be seized)
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1987) (distinction between warrant validity and execution ambiguity)
- Bridges v. State, 574 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978) (officer familiarity and description affecting particularity)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality of the circumstances in probable-cause analysis)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (bifurcated review of suppression rulings)
- McLain v. State, 337 S.W.3d 268 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (affidavit-based probable cause and nexus considerations)
- Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (affidavit-based review and nexus-to-location principles)