Manuel, Frederick
PD-1651-15
| Tex. App. | Dec 18, 2015Background
- On January 20, 2011 a convenience store clerk was shot and robbed; store surveillance showed a six‑foot Black male in a blue jacket, jeans, tan boots, mask.
- Anonymous tip and witness identifications implicated Frederick Manuel and provided his address; a former supervisor said she had seen Manuel wear a similar blue jacket for years.
- Investigators observed a car matching the vehicle in the surveillance video driving toward Manuel’s residence around the time of the offense; three months later officers saw Manuel driving a similar car.
- On April 28, 2011 police obtained a warrant to search Manuel’s residence for clothing, firearms, masks, gloves, and other evidence; execution recovered boots, jeans, a glove, and a mask.
- Manuel moved to suppress the seized evidence, arguing the affidavit lacked facts showing the items were actually at the residence or still there three months after the offense; trial court denied suppression and Manuel was convicted of capital murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Manuel) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavit established probable cause that evidence would be at Manuel's residence | Affidavit failed to allege particularized facts showing items were seen at or remained at the residence when warrant issued | Surveillance, tip, witness ID, and inference that clothing a person "wore a lot" would be kept at home supported a fair probability items were at the residence | Court of Appeals: probable cause satisfied; magistrate could infer clothing/weapons likely at residence |
| Whether officer's reliance on experience/training in affidavit was adequate | Officer's unsupported appeal to "experience" cannot substitute for objective facts in affidavit | Officer’s identification as a homicide investigator and basic factual allegations permit reliance on ordinary-life inferences, not specialized unexplained expertise | Held that no specialized training disclosure was needed; magistrate could rely on everyday-life inferences |
| Whether the information was stale (timeliness) | Three‑month lapse made it unreasonable to presume items remained at the house; warrant information stale | Clothing and nonperishable items worn repeatedly are enduring; latest corroborative observation was within 24 hours of the warrant | Held information timely under Crider factors; fair probability items remained despite lapse |
| Whether the warrant authorized an unconstitutional "general" search | Affidavit insufficiently tied criminal suspicion to place, risking general warrant | Affidavit provided place, items, and supporting circumstantial facts tying suspect to residence and items | Held warrant was particular enough and not a forbidden general warrant |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (affidavit must show fair probability items will be at the place to be searched)
- Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (convictions or drug arrests alone insufficient to show contraband is in residence)
- Rowell v. State, 66 S.W.3d 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (no probable cause where affidavit lacked facts showing firearms had ever been at residence)
- Iverson v. North Dakota, 480 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1973) (magistrate may draw everyday-life inferences about where incriminating items are likely to be found)
- Grubbs v. Ohio, 547 U.S. 90 (2006) (warrant affidavit must support that contraband will be on described premises when warrant is executed)
- Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965) (Fourth Amendment bars general warrants)
- Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978) (probable cause to arrest a person does not automatically justify search of particular premises)