Turrubiate v. State, 365 S.W.3d 780

Appellant Marcos Turrubiate was charged with possession of marijuana between two and four ounces.
Pretrial, Turrubiate moved to suppress the marijuana as the fruit of an unlawful warrantless search; the trial court heard the suppression motion but did not issue an express ruling in the record.
At trial, the marijuana was admitted as State's Exhibit 2, and jurors convicted Turrubiate; he received probation and a fine.
The court initially reversed and remanded, and the State sought rehearing; for purposes of expanding waiver discussion, the court withdrew its prior opinion and issued a new opinion.
The suppression issue centered on Deputy Chavarria’s warrantless entry and whether probable cause with exigent circumstances or voluntary consent supported the seizure.
The record showed the odor of marijuana at the door and a sequence of events leading to a consent to search, with conflicting testimony about the entry and taint from any illegality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved probable cause and exigent circumstances or voluntary consent	Turrubiate argues the warrantless entry was unlawful and the suppression should stand.	State contends the suppression issue was either not preserved or supported by the record, including possible consent or exigent circumstances.	State failed to prove both probable cause and exigent circumstances or valid consent
Whether the taint from illegal entry dissipated, making consent voluntary	Turrubiate argues taint dissipated under Brick factors, allowing voluntary search.	State contends the taint did not dissipate sufficiently to render consent voluntary.	Taint not shown to dissipate; consent invalidated the search, warrantless entry unlawful
Whether Deputy Chavarria’s report was admissible under Confrontation Clause	Turrubiate asserts the report should have been excluded because the deputy did not testify.	State argues the report was admissible under established pretrial procedures.	Report admissible; no Confrontation Clause violation
Whether the suppression ruling was properly preserved on appeal	Turrubiate maintains waiver does not bar appellate review given letters denying suppression.	State argues no express ruling and proper preservation were lacking.	Waiver preserved; appellate review allowed

Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (warrantless residence search presumptively unreasonable; need probable cause + exigent circumstances)
McNairy v. State, 835 S.W.2d 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (exigent circumstances when evidence may be destroyed)
Estrada v. State, 154 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (odor of marijuana as factor in probable cause and exigent circumstances)
Steelman, 93 S.W.3d 102 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (odor of marijuana alone does not authorize warrantless home search; balance with exigent circumstances)
King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (U.S. 2011) (police-created exigency not required; focus on actual Sixth Amendment/Warrant exceptions)
Brick v. State, 738 S.W.2d 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (Brick factors for attenuation of taint in consent searches)
Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (preservation and procedural considerations in suppression rulings)
O'Hara v. State, 27 S.W.3d 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; implied findings if supported by record)
Lopez v. State, 953 S.W.2d 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (consent to search and the voluntariness standard)