State of Texas v. Betts, Tony
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 705
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Betts indicted for cruelty to animals; police seized about 13 dogs from aunt Hall's property; Betts moved to suppress warrantless search; trial court granted suppression; Waco Court of Appeals affirmed; State granted discretionary review.
- Officers observed dogs from street and entered yard; dog conditions described as malnourished; dogs housed ~70 yards from street; Betts had permission to keep dogs on aunt's property.
- Betts argued Fourth/Fifth/Sixth/Fourteenth Amendment violations; trial court found standing and curtilage protection; the appeal challenged plain view and community caretaking theories.
- Trial court made fact findings: dogs visible from street, but entry onto yard not justified; suppression granted; court of appeals applied standard for standing and plain view.
- This Court affirms the court of appeals, holdings: Betts has standing; plain view does not justify warrantless seizure; community caretaking not raised by State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the search | Betts had a reasonable expectation of privacy | State argues Betts lacked standing | Betts has standing |
| Plain view justification for seizure | Betts argues plain view allowed seizure | State relies on plain view | Plain view does not justify entry to the yard without a warrant |
| Community caretaking doctrine applicability | Not argued by State; not applicable | State could rely on caretaking if raised | Waived; cannot rely on theory not raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (public exposure does not remove privacy protections; standing context discussed)
- Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) (airspace observations; not controlling for standing/entry incurtilage)
- Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986) (aerial observation not a search in itself)
- California v. Ciraola, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (public view from air not a warrant requirement}|)
- Keehn v. State, 279 S.W.3d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (plain view needs lawful access to object; vehicle exception can justify entry)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (curtilage protection under Fourth Amendment)
- Gonzalez v. State, 588 S.W.2d 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (curtilage defined; privacy in area surrounding home)
- Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (guest privacy interests differ from owner; backyard context matters)
- Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (totality-of-circumstances standing factors)
- Richardson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (privacy rights are personal; standing requires legitimate expectation)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passengers may have standing in vehicle stops)