Jones v. State
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 500
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Officer applied for a no-knock search warrant at 12:24 a.m. on Nov. 6, 2007, based on a five-page affidavit about 219 North Pine Road.
- Affidavit described multiple confidential informants and a controlled buy resulting in a rock substance testing positive for cocaine.
- Affiant stated ongoing investigation and belief that a Texas Controlled Substances Act violation was occurring at the residence.
- Warrant was executed, revealing cocaine and other drug paraphernalia at Jones's residence.
- Defense movant (Jones) challenged lack of a specific time frame for the events in the affidavit; trial court denied suppression.
- Court of Appeals upheld the warrant, noting ongoing criminal activity and reasonable temporal context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did timing in the affidavit support probable cause? | Jones: insufficient temporal specificity; stale information. | Jones: ongoing operation plus recency supports probable cause. | Probable cause sustained despite imprecision. |
| Can Sutton be distinguished to uphold a warrant with vague timing? | Jones: Sutton distinguishes timing; this case should fail. | Jones: affidavit shows continuing operation; controlled buy after ‘recently’ corroborates. | Sutton distinguished; continuing operation supports probable cause here. |
| Should the warrant be invalid despite continuing-operation rationale? | Jones: continuing-operation theory improperly lowers standard; insufficient to justify. | Jones: Gates framework allows broader consideration of ongoing activity. | Warrant affirmed; ongoing-operation rationale sufficient under totality of circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutton v. State, 419 S.W.2d 857 (Tex.Crim.App. 1967) (recent information supports timely probable cause)
- Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances approach)
- Nathanson v. United States, 292 U.S. 20 (1934) (concern about conclusory statements in warrants)
- Davis v. State, 202 S.W.3d 149 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (distinguishes cases lacking time-related facts)
- Schmidt v. State, 659 S.W.2d 420 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983) (limits of proximity of time in affidavits)
- McLain v. State, 337 S.W.3d 268 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (ongoing activity can render timing less significant)
- Hython v. United States, 443 F.3d 480 (6th Cir. 2006) (single controlled buy insufficient without ongoing operation)
- Johnson v. United States, 461 F.2d 285 (10th Cir. 1972) (protraction of activity reduces sensitivity to timing)