Edward Dean Stewart v. State
10-15-00117-CR
| Tex. App. | May 31, 2017Background
- In July 2012 police executed a warrant at Edward Stewart’s residence seeking methamphetamine evidence; they found no drugs but seized paraphernalia, guns, and electronic devices that later revealed child pornography and led to separate sexual‑abuse charges.
- The challenged July 2012 search-warrant affidavit (prepared by Sgt. Winkler) sought evidence of drug trafficking and listed property to seize, including electronic devices and firearms.
- The affidavit relied on (a) Winkler’s narcotics training and investigative experience, (b) record of prior contacts/arrests and stolen property at the address, and (c) information from three confidential informants (CIs) describing methamphetamine presence and trafficking at the premises (one CI’s in-person visits were last in Dec. 2011; another CI’s report was in June 2012; one CI reported recent observations).
- Winkler corroborated some CI information (Facebook connection between Stewart and a source) and asserted the CIs’ statements were consistent with each other and his background information about Stewart.
- Stewart moved to suppress, arguing the July 2012 affidavit lacked probable cause because the three CIs were untested/first‑time informants of unknown reliability and some information was stale; the trial court denied the motion. Stewart appealed the denial; he did not contest the later November 2013 warrant but argued its evidence was fruits of any defect in the July warrant.
- The court reviewed the affidavit under the totality‑of‑the‑circumstances and deferential standards for magistrate determinations and affirmed the trial court’s denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the July 2012 warrant affidavit established probable cause to search for drug‑trafficking evidence | Stewart: affidavit relied on three untested, first‑time CIs of unknown reliability; CI statements partly stale and lacking basis-of-knowledge; therefore insufficient probable cause | State: affidavit read as a whole showed corroboration among CIs, officer corroboration (Facebook link), Winkler’s training/experience, prior contacts/stolen property, and descriptions of ongoing trafficking — supporting a fair probability evidence would be on premises | Court: Affirmed. Under the totality of the circumstances the affidavit provided a substantial basis for probable cause; CI tips plus corroboration and officer background sufficed despite some weaknesses |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. State, 490 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Jones v. State, 364 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (reviewer looks to four corners of affidavit; magistrate decision entitled to deference)
- Gates v. United States, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for informant tips and probable cause)
- Duarte v. State, 389 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (requirements when affidavit relies on anonymous or first‑time informants)
- Davis v. State, 202 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (common‑sense review and inferences from affidavit to determine probable cause)
- Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (probable cause requires a fair probability that evidence will be found at location)