State of Texas v. James Allen Huddleston
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9656
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- The State appealed an order suppressing evidence obtained from Huddleston’s residence pursuant to a search warrant.
- An anonymous cooperating individual advised Officer Hill that Huddleston possessed anhydrous ammonia in an unapproved container (a 25-gallon propane tank) within 48 hours.
- Hill obtained a search warrant and found a propane tank with bluing on the valve and a bag containing trace methamphetamine.
- The probable-cause affidavit did not establish reliability, veracity, or basis of knowledge of the informant and lacked corroboration.
- The trial court suppressed the evidence, and the State challenged, arguing the warrant was supported by probable cause.
- The court reviews probable cause de novo from the four corners of the affidavit and concludes the warrant did not have a substantial basis for probable cause; suppression affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit establishes probable cause to issue the warrant. | State argues the affidavit shows a trained narcotics investigator’s observations and informant details. | Huddleston contends the informant’s reliability and basis of knowledge are insufficient and lack corroboration. | No; the affidavit fails to establish probable cause. |
| Whether the informant was a citizen informant with sufficient reliability. | State treats the cooperating individual as a citizen informant due to non-anonymity. | Huddleston argues no prior police contact and no corroboration; informant not shown reliable. | No; informant not shown to be a citizen informant and lacks reliability. |
| Whether Article 38.23 requires exclusion when probable cause is not shown. | State contends suppression should not flow from technical deficiencies. | Huddleston asserts exclusion under Article 38.23 because warrant based on insufficient probable cause. | Yes; evidence must be excluded under Article 38.23. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances approach to informant reliability)
- Crider v. State, 352 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (four-corners rule; de novo review of probable cause; credibility not considered beyond affidavit)
- Elardo v. State, 163 S.W.3d 760 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (informant reliability must be demonstrated within four corners; corroboration considered but not mandatory)
- Gates v. State, 462 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (deficiency in reliability may be offset by other indicia; strong totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. Supreme Court 1961) (exclusionary rule applies to illegally obtained evidence)