Frederick Manuel v. State
01-14-00107-CR
Tex. App.Nov 13, 2015Background
- Appellant Frederick Manuel sought rehearing after the First Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained via a search warrant.
- The warrant sought clothing and other items three months after a convenience-store robbery; the affidavit emphasized clothing seen on video and identified Manuel as a suspect.
- Investigators had linked a white 1989 Chevy (license plate 782FWR) to the suspect and to Manuel and had confirmed Manuel’s residence months before the warrant.
- The court of appeals held the affidavit supplied probable cause in part because “common experience” supports the inference that people keep clothing at home.
- Manuel argues that identification of clothing worn during an offense does not automatically establish probable cause to search a residence months later and that the court misread the affidavit’s timeline.
Issues
| Issue | Manuel's Argument | State/Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether identification of clothing worn in an offense supplies probable cause to search the suspect’s residence months later | Identification of clothing alone is insufficient; it improperly expands probable cause because clothing can be worn, laundered, discarded, or stored elsewhere | Common experience permits a fair probability that clothing (especially if worn frequently) will be at the suspect’s home, supporting the warrant | Court of Appeals found affidavit sufficient and affirmed (warrant supported probable cause) |
| Whether the affidavit contained timely, new information (within 24 hours) linking Manuel to the crime and residence | The court misreads the affidavit; investigators had the car and residence link for months and the purported “last piece” (witness ID of a jacket) was not new information about the car or residence | The court viewed the sequence as the officer obtaining corroborating information within 24 hours that linked Manuel and verified residence | Court treated the information as sufficiently timely to support probable cause; Manuel disputes this on rehearing |
| Whether distinguishing clothing from drugs/firearms for location inferences is valid | No meaningful distinction: clothing, guns, and drugs can all be kept, moved, or discarded; therefore clothing should not be treated as inherently likely to be at home | Court treated clothing as sufficiently likely to be at the residence based on common experience, distinguishing items that are commonly stored at home | Court upheld the warrant; Manuel argues the distinction is unsupported and urges reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (discusses factors supporting probable cause and corroboration)
- Arrick v. State, 107 S.W.3d 710 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (affidavit supported search where facts suggested fresh blood and distinctive evidence likely at home)
- Iverson v. North Dakota, 480 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1973) (officer observations and recent contact supported search for bloodstained clothing)