495 S.W.3d 398
Tex. App.2016Background
- Police investigated Walter Louis Jackson, Jr. for suspected drug distribution from an apartment (#10206) and a leased garage (#A3) in Fall 2012 based on tips from confidential informants and surveillance.
- A narcotics-detection dog alerted at the apartment door and later at garage #A3; officers then obtained search warrants and executed searches the same evening.
- Searches of the apartment and garage yielded large quantities of various controlled substances, scales, cash, mail/personal items in Jackson’s name, and other indicia tying Jackson to both locations.
- Jackson was indicted on four counts of possession with intent to deliver (hydrocodone, oxycodone, fentanyl, cocaine); he moved to suppress evidence, arguing the dog sniffs violated the Fourth Amendment under Florida v. Jardines.
- Trial court denied suppression (except it suppressed evidence from a related traffic stop); a jury convicted Jackson on all counts and the court sentenced him to lengthy concurrent terms.
- On appeal the court addressed (inter alia) (1) whether the canine sniffs were unconstitutional under Jardines/Rendon, (2) whether, excluding dog-sniff information, the affidavits established probable cause, (3) sufficiency (affirmative links), and (4) multiple defense-based claims (ineffective assistance, Brady/spoliation, mistrial).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of warrantless dog sniffs at apartment and garage | Dog sniffs at apartment door and garage were searches under Jardines and Rendon and thus unlawful | Sniffs supported probable cause and were lawful; even if sniffs unlawful, other affidavit facts suffice | Dog sniff at apartment door violated Fourth Amendment under Jardines/Rendon; garage-sniff treated separately but court assumed arguendo unlawful and purged dog-sniff statements for warrant review |
| Probable cause for warrants after purging dog-sniff info | Without dog-sniff information, affidavits lacked probable cause | Remaining untainted affidavit (CI corroboration, surveillance, prior stop with dog alert and pills/$6,000, records connecting Jackson to locations) established probable cause | Probable cause existed based on the remaining affidavit facts; warrants valid despite excluding dog-sniff statements |
| Sufficiency — affirmative links to contraband in apartment and garage | Evidence did not show Jackson exercised care, custody, or control; Cline leased apartment and was present at search | Multiple affirmative links (mail/bills in his name, photo, clothing, scales, hidden caches, testimony Cline saw Jackson place drugs, garage access/exclusive remote, large quantities) supported knowing possession | Evidence sufficient; jurors could reasonably find Jackson had actual care, custody, control or management of contraband in both locations |
| Brady / spoliation / ineffective assistance / mistrial claims | State withheld favorable evidence/offers of leniency; counsel failed to pursue disclosure/spoliation/new-trial/other tactics; mistrial needed after witness referenced prior record | No record evidence of withheld materials or promises; many claims unpreserved or speculative; counsel’s omissions not shown deficient on record; instruction to disregard cured prior-record remark | Appellant failed to preserve or prove Brady/spoliation; ineffective-assistance claims rejected due to undeveloped record and strategic-presumption; mistrial not required — instruction cured prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (use of a drug-detection dog on the home’s curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search)
- State v. Rendon, 477 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (applied Jardines to canine sniff at apartment door and held it was an unlicensed curtilage intrusion)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause from informant tips)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (evidence obtained via unconstitutional means may be severed when other lawful information independently establishes probable cause)
- Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (elements of possession and requirement of affirmative links when defendant lacks exclusive possession)
- Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (non-exhaustive list of affirmative-link factors to establish knowing possession)
- Cuong Phu Le v. State, 463 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (to validate a warrant after removing tainted statements, examine purged affidavit under Gates/common-sense inferences)