State v. Griggs
352 S.W.3d 297
Tex. App.2011Background
- Griggs was indicted for possession of crack cocaine in Harris County, Texas.
- Griggs moved to suppress evidence on grounds the search-warrant affidavit lacked probable cause.
- The trial court granted suppression; the State appealed for deference to the magistrate’s probable-cause determination.
- The magistrate had issued a warrant based on Officer Craig’s affidavit describing a controlled buy and informant information.
- The affidavit alleged crack cocaine was stored and sold at 4811 Eppes; informant made a purchase within 48 hours and was invited to return.
- The appellate court reverses the suppression and remands, holding the affidavit supported probable cause under the totality-of-the-circumstances approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause to search | State argues the magistrate could infer probable cause from the controlled buy and ongoing drug activity. | Griggs contends the affidavit lacks sufficient linkage and timeliness to sustain probable cause. | Probable cause supported; magistrate’s inference deference affirmed. |
| Whether the trial court properly refused deference to the magistrate’s probable-cause finding | State contends deference to the magistrate’s conclusions was appropriate under totality of circumstances. | Griggs argues the magistrate’s inference was not justified by the affidavit. | Affirmative deference to the magistrate’s probable-cause ruling applied; evidence admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLain v. State, 337 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (great deference to magistrate’s implicit probable-cause findings; totality of the circumstances)
- Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause assessed via totality of the circumstances; reasonableness of inferences)
- Davis v. State, 202 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (probable cause supported by facts within affidavit’s four corners)
- Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (consider inferences from facts; avoid hyper-technical parsing)
- Hennessy v. State, 660 S.W.2d 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (hearsay-upon-hearsay allowed if underlying circumstances credit reliability)
- Lockett v. State, 879 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. App.—Hou. [14th Dist.] 1994) (staleness evaluated with timing and type of criminal activity)
- Hafford v. State, 989 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. App.—Hou. [1st Dist.] 1999) (assess freshness of information; controlled-buy timeframe matters)
- Washington v. State, 902 S.W.2d 649 (Tex. App.—Hou. [14th Dist.] 1995) (tip corroborated by informant’s ongoing drug-trade inference)
- Blake v. State, 125 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. App.—Hou. [1st Dist.] 2003) (common-sense interpretation of affidavit credibility)
- Williams v. State, 37 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (informant-not-seen-by-officers can still support probable cause)