Terry Eugene Glenn, Sr. v. State
475 S.W.3d 530
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Terry Eugene Glenn, Sr. was arrested after officers found a pill bottle in his hand while he lay disoriented in a busy intersection; officers smelled burnt marihuana and Glenn said the bottle was someone else’s diazepam prescription.
- Officers opened the pill bottle without asking for consent and discovered baggies containing a white rock substance; a field test was positive for cocaine.
- Glenn moved to suppress the cocaine as the product of a warrantless search and later challenged admission of the pill bottle and cocaine for lack of proper chain of custody.
- At the suppression hearing, dash-cam audio/video and officer testimony showed officers asked what was in Glenn’s hand, then opened the bottle within about a minute; cross-examination established no warrant was obtained.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion; a jury convicted Glenn of possession of a controlled substance (<1 gram) and, after he pleaded true to two prior felonies, he received 15 years’ imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Glenn) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the pill bottle search violated the Fourth Amendment | Search was warrantless, no probable cause, plain-view doctrine does not apply | Bottle was in plain view; Glenn smelled of burnt marihuana giving probable cause; defendant failed to prove absence of a warrant | Court: Glenn preserved only Fourth Amendment claim; he met initial burden to show search was warrantless; under facts officers had probable cause to arrest and search incident to arrest — suppression denied |
| 2. Whether the plain-view doctrine justified opening the pill bottle | Contents were not in plain view, so opening was unlawful | Even if plain-view didn’t apply, probable cause existed based on odor, behavior, and admission about the bottle | Court: assumed plain-view might not apply but found probable cause existed, so search valid as incident to arrest |
| 3. Whether Glenn preserved non‑Fourth Amendment claims (e.g., due process/Texas Constitution) | Raised them in written motion to suppress | At hearing Glenn argued only Fourth Amendment; thus other claims not preserved | Court: only Fourth Amendment issue preserved on appeal; other constitutional/code claims waived |
| 4. Whether the pill bottle and cocaine were admissible—chain of custody | Chain had gaps and booking discrepancy (4–200g recorded) raising tampering/identity concerns | State proved initial and final custody; no affirmative evidence of tampering; gaps affect weight not admissibility | Court: admission proper; proof of beginning and end of chain and no evidence of tampering satisfied admissibility requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (motion to suppress is a specialized objection requiring specificity)
- Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (requirements to preserve complaint for appeal)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Russell v. State, 717 S.W.2d 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (circumstantial evidence can show absence of a warrant)
- Bishop v. State, 85 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (unsworn motion allegations may be considered when affidavits used)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1973) (community‑caretaking exception to warrant requirement)
- Brimage v. State, 918 S.W.2d 466 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (warrantless searches of persons presumptively unreasonable absent exception)
- State v. Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (definition of probable cause for arrest)
- Ross v. State, 486 S.W.2d 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (odor of marihuana can provide probable cause to search)
- Stoker v. State, 788 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (proof of chain of custody: beginning and end sufficient absent tampering)