Michael Wade Pache v. State, 413 S.W.3d 509

Michael Wade Pache was indicted for possession with intent to deliver/manufacture methamphetamine and possession of marijuana; he pleaded guilty after the trial court denied his motion to suppress and appealed that denial.
Officers received an informant tip that narcotics were being sold from a trailer home and went to conduct a knock-and-talk; the property gate was open and officers saw no no-trespassing signs (officers’ testimony).
At the front door officers smelled a strong odor of marijuana; Pache opened the door, attempted to shut it, then ran through the trailer and was tackled and handcuffed inside.
An officer in the backyard observed marijuana plants through a rear window and then came to the front; after Pache was Mirandized he consented to a search, and officers located contraband.
Pache testified there was a longstanding “no trespassing” sign at the gate, denied consenting to the search, and argued the yard was curtilage and officers’ warrantless presence/entry tainted any consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Pache)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Were officers’ warrantless entry and presence on property unlawful (curtilage)?	Yard/curtilage protected; officers unlawfully entered without a warrant.	Officers approached by front path under implicit license; no-trespass signs not observed by officers.	Court: Front-approach permitted; trial court could credit officers that no sign was visible.
Was there probable cause to enter/search the home?	Probable cause insufficient to justify entry absent warrant.	Tip + strong marijuana odor provided probable cause to believe a crime was occurring.	Court: Probable cause existed based on tip and odor.
Were exigent circumstances present to permit immediate entry?	Odor and mere presence of police do not alone establish exigency; consent was tainted.	Pache’s flight through the trailer suggested attempt to destroy evidence, creating exigency.	Court: Exigency shown by flight and context; entry without warrant was justified.
Was consent to search voluntary or tainted by illegal entry?	Consent involuntary because entry was illegal and tainted.	Entry was lawful; consent was given after warnings and was valid.	Court: Because entry was lawful and exigent, consent was not tainted; search valid.

Baird v. State, 398 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Turrubiate v. State, 399 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (odor alone plus knowledge of police at the door does not automatically create exigent circumstances)
Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (probable cause plus exigent circumstances can justify warrantless entry)
Parker v. State, 206 S.W.3d 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (totality of circumstances for probable cause from drug odor and tips)
State v. Betts, 397 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (definition and protection of curtilage)
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (U.S. 2013) (curtilage is part of the home; implicit license to approach front door to knock)
Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (U.S. 2011) (occupants who attempt to destroy evidence may justify warrantless entry)
Cooksey v. State, 350 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (curtilage discussion relied on by appellant)
Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1961) (foundational principle of the home’s sanctity against unreasonable governmental intrusion)