McClintock, Bradley Ray
541 S.W.3d 63
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Police used a drug-sniffing dog at the exterior door/stairway of McClintock’s upstairs apartment; the dog alerted and that alert was included in the warrant affidavit.
- McClintock moved to suppress, arguing the dog sniff was an unconstitutional search of the curtilage and tainted the warrant affidavit, leaving insufficient probable cause.
- Trial court denied suppression (found no curtilage invasion); McClintock pleaded guilty to a reduced charge while preserving the suppression issue.
- After appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Florida v. Jardines (holding a dog sniff at a home’s curtilage can be a search); the Texas court of appeals reversed, excluding evidence as tainted.
- This Court granted review to decide whether Texas’s statutory good-faith exception (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.23(b)) can excuse the use of warrant-supported evidence when the warrant relied on information obtained via a prior illegality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McClintock) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Art. 38.23(b)’s good-faith exception can apply when a warrant’s probable-cause affidavit contains information obtained by prior police illegality (fruit of the poisonous tree) | The tainted information (dog alert) must be excised; without it the affidavit lacks probable cause and Art. 38.23(b) cannot save the evidence | The good-faith exception should apply where officers reasonably relied on existing precedent—Davis supports excusing reliance on a magistrate’s warrant even if later precedent deems the underlying conduct unconstitutional | Art. 38.23(b) can accommodate a good-faith exception for tainted affidavits: admissibility allowed where prior conduct was "close enough to the line of validity" that an objectively reasonable officer would believe the information was not unconstitutionally obtained (adopting the Massi standard) |
| Whether the specific canine sniff here was "close enough to the line of validity" so officers acted in objective good faith | The sniff invaded curtilage under Jardines and was unconstitutional; the alert thus tainted the affidavit | Officers reasonably relied on then-binding precedent and the legal question was sufficiently close; they acted in objective good faith in relying on the magistrate’s probable-cause finding | Although the sniff violated the Fourth Amendment under Jardines, the Court holds the officers’ conduct was "close enough to the line of validity" that their reliance on the resulting warrant was objectively reasonable; exclusion was not required and suppression was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (federal good-faith rule: evidence obtained in reasonable reliance on binding precedent is not subject to exclusion)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (a canine sniff at the curtilage of a home can be a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishes federal "good-faith" exception to exclusionary rule for warrants)
- United States v. Massi, 761 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2014) (articulates two-part test: prior conduct must be "close enough to the line of validity" and officers must act in objective good faith)
- United States v. Holley, 831 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 2016) (applies Massi to drug-dog-sniff facts and upholds admissibility under good-faith)
- United States v. McClain, 444 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2005) (good-faith applies where prior illegality was "close to the line" and the warrant affidavit disclosed circumstances to the magistrate)
- State v. Rendon, 477 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (applies Jardines to hold a canine sniff at a residence entrance can invade curtilage)