Brooks L. Burtson v. State, 02-14-00392-CR

Burtson was detained at his hotel room after officers smelled freshly burned marijuana when he opened the door and observed marijuana in plain view.
Officers requested consent to search; Burtson refused. They then prepared and obtained a search warrant, which was issued about 3 hours after their initial contact (police arrived ~7:12 p.m.; warrant issued 10:38 p.m.).
During the interim, officers arrested Burtson’s girlfriend on an outstanding warrant, booked her, prepared the warrant application, and Sergeant Shackelford reviewed it and presented it to a magistrate.
The executed warrant led to discovery of substantial controlled substances (dihydrocodeinone, cocaine, methamphetamine), and Burtson pleaded guilty to three possession-with-intent-to-deliver charges with enhancement allegations; sentences were imposed concurrent for ten years.
Burtson moved to suppress, arguing the ~3-hour detention before issuance of the warrant was an unreasonable seizure unsupported by specific articulable facts beyond the odor and small amount of marijuana in plain view.
The trial court found the officers’ version credible (smell of marijuana, invited entry, plain-view marijuana), denied suppression, and this appeal followed; the court applied the bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ~3-hour detention while obtaining a search warrant was an unreasonable seizure requiring suppression	Burtson: detention was unjustified and prolonged based only on smell/plain-view of small marijuana; no articulable facts to detain him for hours	State: plain-view marijuana supplied probable cause; officers acted diligently in preparing/obtaining warrant and performing related tasks (arresting/book in of girlfriend, admin steps)	Denied suppression: court deferred to trial judge’s credibility findings, held plain-view/probable cause justified detention while officers diligently sought a warrant; three-hour delay not per se unreasonable

Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings)
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (deference to trial court fact findings in suppression contexts)
Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) (temporary prevention of entry to secure premises while obtaining warrant can be reasonable)
Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (detention requires specific, articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion)
Radford v. State, 56 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001) (mere smell of marijuana insufficient for warrantless entry/arrest)
Newhouse v. State, 53 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (police must have legally sufficient reason to enter motel room without a warrant)
Estrada v. State, 154 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (review standards for suppression rulings)