Kevin Duane Drisdale v. State, 03-15-00053-CR

Background

Appellant Kevin Duane Drisdale pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver cocaine after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from his apartment; sentence 20 years, with appeal preserved on suppression ruling.
Killeen police responded to a 911 hang-up and were directed by co-tenant Brenda Layton to Drisdale on the second-floor walkway; Layton reported a verbal altercation, interference with 911, that Drisdale might run, and that he had her keys and phone.
Layton, who was on the lease and facing eviction, gave officers verbal consent to help search the apartment for her phone and keys.
While assisting Layton, Officer Stickles opened a brown wooden box on a closet shelf and observed baggies, scales, razor blades, and what he believed to be cocaine; he returned the box to the shelf before Drisdale reentered.
Drisdale retrieved a phone hidden under a mattress and was subsequently arrested; the State relied on Layton’s consent to justify the warrantless opening of the closed box and seizure of its contents.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether co-tenant Layton had authority to consent to opening a closed container (the brown box) and seizure of its contents without a warrant	State: Layton’s consent to search the premises for phone/keys extended to the box discovered in a shared closet; evidence admissible	Drisdale: Layton lacked common authority over the closed box; State failed to prove consent to open/seize by clear and convincing evidence	Trial court denied suppression; appellate brief argues error (requests reversal)
Whether the State met the clear-and-convincing proof standard for third-party consent	State: implied mutual use/control of closet items justified relying on her consent	Drisdale: record lacks evidence of mutual use or authority over the closed container; container privacy protects its contents absent warrant	Trial court credited consent testimony and denied motion to suppress; appellant disputes sufficiency of proof
Whether officers should have obtained a search warrant based on Layton’s specific allegations	State: exigency/domestic-safety and consent justified search without warrant	Drisdale: Layton’s statements could have supported a warrant; officers improperly relied on consent to bypass magistrate	Appellant argues warrant should have been sought; trial court accepted consent rationale
Whether discovery of the drugs was attenuated or derivative of any Fourth Amendment violation	State: discovery occurred during lawful consent-based search	Drisdale: opening/seizure of closed container was unlawful, so evidence was fruit of unconstitutional search	Trial court held evidence admissible under consent theory; appellant preserved issue for appeal

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974) (third-party common authority can validate consent to search premises)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (U.S. 2006) (co-tenant consent may be ineffective if a physically present co-occupant objects)
Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (U.S. 1969) (third-party consent recognized as distinct from waiver of trial rights)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1971) (discussion of consent searches vs. warrant requirements)
United States v. Taylor, 600 F.3d 678 (6th Cir. 2010) (closed-container analysis where tenant opened a container and another occupant claimed privacy)
United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861 (10th Cir. 1992) (suppressing search of luggage left at a third party’s residence despite third-party consent)
Malone v. State, 163 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App. 2005) (standard of review for suppression hearing; defer to trial court on credibility)
State v. Ibarra, 953 S.W.2d 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (State must prove voluntariness of consent by clear and convincing evidence)