Michael Fred Wehrenberg v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9291
Tex. App.2012Background
- Police surveilled the residence at 501 Center Point Rd, Parker County for about 30 days; informant said occupants were “fixing to” cook meth.
- Officers entered the residence without a warrant, detained several occupants including Wehrenberg, and conducted a protective sweep.
- A search-warrant affidavit was prepared afterward; about an hour later, a magistrate issued a warrant and police searched the residence.
- Police found meth precursors and other items; Wehrenberg was arrested after the search.
- Wehrenberg moved to suppress all evidence; the trial court partially granted and partially denied the motion; he pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain.
- The Court of Appeals remanded, reversing the suppression denial in part, and held the warrantless-entry issues were dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances | Wehrenberg argues illegality taints the warrant | State argues probable cause plus exigent circumstances | No; exigent circumstances did not establish imminent destruction/necessity. |
| Whether the emergency/ community caretaking doctrine justified the entry | Emergency doctrine not supported by record | State contends caretaking justified entry | No; emergency doctrine could not justify the warrantless entry. |
| Whether Segura and the independent source doctrine apply to Texas exclusionary rule | Independent source doctrine applies to exclude taint | Independent source/Segura doctrines justify admission | No; independent source doctrine does not apply under Texas law here. |
| Whether the independent source/Segura framework permits admission of evidence | Evidence derived from independent source should be admitted | Evidence tainted by initial illegality cannot be admitted | The challenged evidence cannot be admitted on independent source grounds under Texas law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (U.S. 1984) (independent source doctrine in illegal-entry context)
- Garcia v. State, 829 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (Texas exclusionary rule; no federal exceptions adopted)
- Daugherty v. State, 931 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (Texas approach to inevitable discovery/independent source)
- Oliver v. State, 711 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1986) (Texas rejection of federal independent source in art. 38.23 context)
- State v. Powell, 306 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Texas independent source discussion in criminal context)
- McNairy v. State, 835 S.W.2d 106 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (Exigent circumstances and probable cause in warrantless entry)
- Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1973) (imminent destruction of evidence justification for warrantless action)
- Rhiger, United States v. Rhiger, 315 F.3d 1283 (10th Cir. 2003) (imminent danger of meth lab justified entry)
- Walsh, United States v. Walsh, 299 F.3d 729 (8th Cir. 2002) (ether/smell and ongoing manufacture as exigency)
- Wilson, United States v. Wilson, 865 F.2d 215 (9th Cir. 1989) (exigency from ongoing meth production)
- Grosenheider, 200 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2000) (independent source doctrine explanation)