Crawford, Scott Ellery Jr.
PD-0742-15
| Tex. | Jun 19, 2015Background
- Early morning stop: Officer Suarez stopped Crawford for speeding during a "no-refusal" weekend, observed signs consistent with intoxication (odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes), Crawford admitted drinking, failed unspecified SFSTs, refused breath test, and was arrested.
- Suarez prepared and faxed a sworn affidavit requesting a warrant for a blood draw; a Fort Worth municipal magistrate (Langston) signed and returned a search warrant about 90 minutes after the arrest.
- Blood test showed a BAC of 0.15; Crawford moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing lack of probable cause for the warrant and defects in its execution.
- Trial court granted the suppression and made detailed findings questioning the affidavit’s sufficiency and whether the magistrate actually read the affidavit; the magistrate did not appear at the hearing.
- On appeal, the Second Court of Appeals initially issued a memorandum opinion, then withdrew it and issued a substituted opinion reversing the trial court: it held the affidavit provided a substantial basis for probable cause and that the good-faith exception (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.23(b)) permitted admission of the blood results.
- A concurring justice expressed concern that Texas courts need guidance on the scope and application of the statutory good-faith exception when warrants or affidavits are deficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Crawford) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit supported probable cause for a blood-draw warrant | Crawford: affidavit contained conclusory and ambiguous statements ("admitted to drinking" without confirming alcohol, undefined "SFST", no intensity of odor or description of impairment) and thus failed to establish probable cause | State: combined facts and reasonable inferences from the affidavit (odor, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, admission, failed SFSTs, refusal of breath) provided a substantial basis for probable cause | Held: Court of Appeals reversed—magistrate had a substantial basis to find probable cause under the totality-of-circumstances/substantial-basis standard |
| Whether defects in the warrant or affidavit require suppression despite magistrate’s determination | Crawford: defects (e.g., allegedly false statement that affidavit was made "before" the magistrate; other infirmities) render evidence inadmissible | State: even if there are warrant defects, article 38.23(b) (good-faith exception) allows admission when officer acted in objective good faith on a magistrate-issued warrant based on probable cause | Held: Held that because magistrate had a substantial basis for probable cause, the good-faith exception permits admission of the blood-test results |
| Proper standard and deference on appellate review of magistrate's probable-cause finding | Crawford: trial-court factual findings (credibility, whether magistrate read warrant) require deference; appellate court should not substitute its judgment | State: second-level appellate review applies the substantial-basis standard to the magistrate’s decision, reviewing the four-corners of the affidavit and reasonable inferences | Held: Court applied the substantial-basis/totality-of-circumstances test and reversed the trial court, concluding the trial court improperly read the affidavit hyper‑technically and failed to afford deference to the magistrate |
| Whether failure of the magistrate to appear at the suppression hearing or questions about whether she read the affidavit vitiate deference to the magistrate | Crawford: magistrate’s nonappearance and trial-court finding that she may not have read the affidavit eliminate deference to her probable-cause determination | State: presence or physical presence before the magistrate is not required for a valid search-warrant affidavit; reviewing court should defer to magistrate’s reasoned determination when supported by the affidavit | Held: Court rejected Crawford’s challenge on this basis, noting a search warrant need not be sworn in the magistrate’s physical presence and that the magistrate’s issuance was supported by the affidavit |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (adopts totality-of-the-circumstances and substantial-basis approach to probable cause for search warrants)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (Franks challenge is the avenue to attack intentional or reckless falsehoods in affidavits supporting warrants)
- State v. Duarte, 389 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (magistrate may draw reasonable inferences; reviewing courts must use a realistic, not hyper-technical, reading of affidavits)
- Dunn v. State, 951 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (explains Texas good‑faith exception under article 38.23(b))
- State v. Jordan, 342 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (recognizes that reasonable inferences from facts in an affidavit can establish probable cause for blood-draw warrants)
- State v. Webre, 347 S.W.3d 381 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (examines when appellate review may look only to the four corners and the magistrate’s probable-cause determination; often cited on deferential review of magistrate findings)