Turrubiate v. State
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 635
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Texas DPFS investigator Lopez investigated marijuana use at the home where a six-month-old child lived with the girlfriend.
- Lopez smelled a strong odor of marijuana from the home, spoke with occupant, and left to coordinate further action.
- Deputy Chavarria joined Lopez; after another knock, the door opened revealing a strong marijuana odor again.
- Deputy Chavarria forcibly entered to prevent destruction of marijuana, searched the appellant, and arrested him for possession.
- Appellant moved to suppress; trial court denied; the court of appeals reversed, holding no exigent circumstances.
- The State petitioned for discretionary review, arguing alternative exigent-ground based on child safety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exigent destruction of evidence based on odor | Turrubiate: odor plus probable cause cannot justify entry. | Turrubiate: destruction imminent not shown by record. | Not proven; no imminent destruction. |
| Applicability of Kentucky v. King framework | King permits warrantless entry if exigency exists without state-caused deprivation. | Record supports imminent destruction under King framework. | Five McNairy factors reinterpreted; destruction-imminence not shown. |
| Alternative ground of child-safety exigency | Presence of marijuana/endangering child could create exigency for entry. | Court of appeals did not address child-safety ground; may sustain if proven. | Remanded to address child-safety theory. |
| Standard of review and evidentiary burden | Court should apply correct standard and totality of circumstances. | Court applied proper de novo/abuse-of-discretion review. | Remain with standard; factual findings reviewed for abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (set forth exigent-circumstances framework including destruction of evidence)
- McNairy v. State, 835 S.W.2d 101 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (identified five factors for imminent destruction of evidence)
- Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (— U.S. 2011) (exigency when police do not create the circumstance; focus on destruction of evidence)
- King v. Commonwealth, 386 S.W.3d 119 (Ky.2012) (describes evidentiary sounds and exigency assessment on remand)
- United States v. Ramirez, 676 F.3d 755 (8th Cir.2012) (notes on exigent circumstances not established when occupants not aware of police presence)
- United States v. Mata, 517 F.3d 279 (5th Cir.2008) (examines knock-entry dynamic and plain-entry considerations)
- Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000) (subjects objective exigency evidence to relevance beyond officer intent)
- Shepherd v. State, 273 S.W.3d 681 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (emergency-aid doctrine’s reach in warrantless actions)