State v. Cuong Phu Le
2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 516
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- In November 2012 a concerned citizen reported unusual short evening visits by young men to a house at 8603 Jubilee Drive; utilities were in appellee Le’s name though his driver’s license listed a different address.
- Narcotics sergeant Robert Clark (extensive grow-operation experience) investigated: observed tightly drawn blinds, heard continuous A/C on a cool day, smelled raw marijuana at the front door, and performed nighttime surveillance showing little interior lighting.
- Sergeant Bobby Roberts observed the same black Toyota SUV at the house, stopped the vehicle after it left, and smelled raw marijuana on appellee and in the car; a drug-detection dog then alerted at the house.
- A magistrate issued a search warrant; execution recovered 358 marijuana plants and appellee was indicted for felony possession.
- After indictment the Supreme Court decided Florida v. Jardines (dog sniff on porch is a Fourth Amendment search). At suppression appellee argued the dog-sniff must be excluded and the remaining affidavit lacked probable cause as stale; trial court and court of appeals suppressed. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Le) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether, after excluding the dog-sniff per Jardines, the remaining affidavit clearly established probable cause for the warrant | The affidavit contained independently acquired, corroborated facts (reliable citizen tip, odors, surveillance, vehicle link, A/C use) that collectively showed a fair probability of ongoing indoor marijuana cultivation | The dog-sniff was integral; without it the remaining facts were stale, speculative, and insufficient to show probable cause for the residence | The court held the untainted information, viewed cumulatively and commonsensically, clearly established probable cause and reversed suppression |
| Staleness: whether observations (some ~2 weeks earlier) could support a warrant for an ongoing grow operation | The facts indicated continuous/ongoing activity (daily tending implied; corroborating odors and surveillance) so staleness did not defeat probable cause for a grow operation | The temporal gaps make the earlier observations stale; only the odor on Nov. 27 was timely and insufficient to show marijuana inside the house | The court held evidence of an ongoing enterprise defeats staleness; combining earlier observations with the Nov. 27 odor was sufficient |
| Reliability and use of the anonymous concerned-citizen tip | The citizen was vetted (no criminal history, homeowner in county, accountable despite anonymity) and provided specific, corroborated observations supporting reliability | The tip was non-technical, did not mention drugs, and cannot alone support probable cause | The court treated the citizen as reliable and gave the tip weight when corroborated by police observations |
| Whether good-faith exception could salvage the search | N/A at trial (State did not raise good-faith below) | Argued suppression required because warrant lacked probable cause; good‑faith was forfeited | Court did not reach or apply good-faith because issue was procedurally barred; decision rests on sufficiency of untainted affidavit |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (use of drug-detection dog on a home’s porch without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (standard of review for search-and-seizure legal questions)
- McClintock v. State, 444 S.W.3d 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (when a warrant affidavit must be purged of tainted information, courts must determine whether the remaining lawful information clearly establishes probable cause)
- Jones v. State, 364 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (evidence of ongoing criminal activity generally defeats staleness challenges)
- Estrada v. State, 154 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (officer’s detection of marijuana odor can contribute to probable cause for a warrant)
- Davis v. State, 202 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (officer’s trained odor recognition, combined with background corroboration, can establish probable cause)
- Brown v. State, 605 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (warrant procured by use of illegally obtained information is invalid unless the untainted information alone supports probable cause)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (preference for warrants and deference to magistrate in doubtful cases)