State v. Weaver
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1320
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Weaver owned a welding shop with a rear workshop and a bay door where a van was parked beside the shop.
- Narcotics officers came to search for Jerry “Bear,” a person wanted in another county; Weaver consented to search for Bear.
- Officers searched the van for about ten minutes; Bear wasn’t found, but officers pursued further investigation due to drugs activity at the shop.
- Weaver refused consent to search the van; Lt. Lowrie retrieved a drug dog, and the dog alerted on the van, leading to methamphetamine pipes being found.
- Weaver was arrested for methamphetamine possession; he moved to suppress, and the trial court granted suppression; the court of appeals affirmed; the Court of Criminal Appeals granted review amid a split among justices.
- The majority affirmed the trial court and the court of appeals, concluding the dog sniff and subsequent search exceeded the scope of Weaver’s consent; dissents argued the sniff was not a Fourth Amendment search or that essential factual findings were missing/incorrect.
- The case ultimately addressed whether a dog sniff of an exterior, unoccupied vehicle in a business premises area requires owner consent and whether the van’s location was open to the public.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of consent to search the van | Weaver’s consent ended; dog sniff beyond scope | Consent to Bear search could extend to van under implied scope | Consent ended; continued presence and dog search unauthorized |
| Is a canine sniff of an exterior vehicle a Fourth Amendment search | Dog sniff not a search; evidence lawful | Dog sniff not a search, but location/consent issues | Dog sniff itself not a search, but unlawful extension if on private premises without consent |
| Open-to-public parking lot vs private loading area | Van parked in public parking area open to public | Van located on private property adjacent to Weaver’s shop | Record supports non-public loading area; public-open status not established |
| Whether officers exceeded consent by remaining with dog when Weaver objected | Consent remained; officers lawful | Weaver withdrew consent; officers exceeded consent by staying | Officers exceeded consent by bringing dog after withdrawal of consent |
| Treatment of essential findings under Elias framework | Trial court findings sufficient | Remand required for dispositive fact(s) | Remand appropriate where dispositive fact findings were missing or implicit |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (Supreme Court 2005) (dog sniff not a search when police have right to be where they are; but cannot prolong stop)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court 1991) (consent to search defined by scope; reasonable expectation of scope)
- Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (consent to enter for purpose may extend to adjacent areas; objective standard)
- State v. Woodard, 341 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (applies standard of deference to trial findings in suppression rulings)
- State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (remand for entry of essential factual findings when necessary)