481 S.W.3d 278
Tex. App.2015Background
- A convenience store clerk was murdered on camera; the shooter was a black male about six feet tall wearing a blue jacket with light sleeve stripes, jeans, tan boots, dark mask, and fled in the direction of a residence.
- Anonymous tip identified appellant Frederick Manuel as the shooter and gave his address; police verified the tip details.
- Former supervisor and coworker identified the jacket and the suspect’s gait as matching Manuel; police found a prior robbery report at Manuel’s former workplace involving a similar description.
- Police observed a car matching a vehicle in the surveillance video driving toward Manuel’s residence before the murder and later saw Manuel driving a similar car; within 24 hours of this observation they obtained a warrant.
- Warrant sought clothing, firearms, masks, gloves; officers seized tan boots, blue jeans, a glove, and a black mask at Manuel’s home.
- Manuel moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause (items not shown to be at residence, officer’s reliance on unspecified experience, and stale information); trial court denied suppression and Manuel was convicted and sentenced to life.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause that evidence (clothing/firearms) would be at Manuel’s residence | Affidavit failed to show the items were probably at the residence when the warrant issued | Surveillance video, tip verification, identifications, and car movements supported a fair probability the items were at the residence | Court held affidavit provided a fair probability clothing/weapons would be at the residence; probable cause satisfied |
| Whether the affidavit improperly relied on the officer’s unspecified “experience and training” | Officer invoked experience/training without detail, so magistrate couldn’t evaluate that basis | Officer was a Texas peace officer working with homicide investigators; no specialized training was necessary to infer people keep clothing at home | Court held reliance was on ordinary inferences (everyday experience), not undisclosed specialized training; affidavit adequate |
| Whether supporting information was stale (timeliness) | Facts were months old; affidavit did not explain why evidence would still be at the residence | Most recent corroboration was within 24 hours; items (clothing) are not perishable and defendant was an established resident | Court applied Crider factors and held timing was reasonable; magistrate could infer items remained at residence |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-circumstances test and fair-probability standard for probable cause)
- Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960) (magistrate must have a substantial basis for probable-cause finding)
- McLain v. State, 337 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (deference to magistrate; four-corners rule for affidavits)
- Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (fair-probability standard applied to clothing located in a residence)
- Crider v. State, 352 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (timeliness factors for staleness analysis)
- Grubbs v. United States, 547 U.S. 90 (2006) (warrant must show it is probable items will be on premises when executed)
- Flores v. State, 319 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to magistrate; magistrate’s decision prevails in marginal cases)
- Arrick v. State, 107 S.W.3d 710 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (upholding search for clothing at residence based on reasonable inference)
- Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (officer’s generalized drug-experience assertions insufficient without factual support)