McClintock, Bradley Ray, PD-1641-15

Background

Police obtained and executed a search warrant for Bradley Ray McClintock’s home; evidence was seized under that warrant.
On prior review this Court held the warrant lacked probable cause under a correct application of the law. McClintock v. State, 444 S.W.3d 15.
The question on discretionary review was whether evidence should be suppressed under Texas Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.23(a) or saved by the good-faith exception in art. 38.23(b).
Article 38.23(a) bars evidence obtained in violation of constitutional or state law; subsection (b) excepts evidence obtained in objective good-faith reliance on a warrant "based upon probable cause."
The majority applied a good-faith analysis informed by federal precedents; the dissent (opinion here) argues the statute’s plain text requires suppression because the warrant was not based on probable cause.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence obtained under the warrant must be suppressed under art. 38.23(a)	McClintock: Suppress—no probable cause; statute’s plain text bars admission	State: Good-faith exception applies if magistrate reasonably relied on then-accepted law	Dissent: Suppress—art. 38.23(b) requires a warrant actually "based on probable cause," so exception inapplicable
Whether art. 38.23(b) permits consideration of a magistrate’s reasonable but legally incorrect view of probable cause	McClintock: No—statute requires actual probable cause; cannot rely on extra-textual sources	State: Yes—the exception should consider objective good faith under the law as applied at the time	Dissent: No—reliance on extra-textual/federal law is improper when statute’s plain language is unambiguous
Proper interpretive method for art. 38.23 when meaning appears plain	McClintock: Apply plain meaning; do not consult extra-textual sources or federal analogues	State: Use broader doctrine including federal good-faith precedent to evaluate exception	Dissent: Apply statutory plain-meaning, per Boykin; avoid extra-textual sources absent ambiguity
Effect of prior Court precedent finding no probable cause	McClintock: That ruling means subsection (b) cannot rescue the evidence	State: Prior misstatements of law might make magistrate’s reliance reasonable; exception could apply	Dissent: Prior ruling fixing lack of probable cause controls; exception cannot apply without actual probable cause

Key Cases Cited

Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (apply plain statutory text; avoid extra-textual sources absent ambiguity)
McClintock v. State, 444 S.W.3d 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (this Court previously held the warrant lacked probable cause)
McClintock v. State, 480 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (court of appeals suppressed evidence under art. 38.23)
Curry v. State, 808 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (art. 38.23(b) requires an initial determination of probable cause)
Dunn v. State, 951 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (good-faith exception applied only in technical warrant-defect contexts)
State v. Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (express statutory exceptions must be applied as written)