Wehrenberg, Michael Fred
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1812
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Police entered the Parker County residence without a warrant or consent after a confidential informant tipped they would be manufacturing methamphetamine that night.
- A protective sweep followed; officers detained individuals, including Wehrenberg, and then left the residence while a search-warrant affidavit was prepared based solely on the informant’s tip.
- The search warrant was obtained at about 1:50–2:00 a.m., and a subsequent residence search recovered methamphetamine and manufacturing materials.
- Wehrenberg moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the initial warrantless entry was unlawful and tainted the later evidence, but the trial court partially denied suppression for warrant-based evidence.
- Court of Appeals reversed suppression based on the claim that the independent source doctrine could not apply in Texas; the State sought discretionary review to uphold the doctrine as consistent with Texas law.
- The Court, after review, held that the independent source doctrine is applicable in Texas and consistent with Article 38.23, remanding for further consideration on suppression issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the federal independent source doctrine applicable in Texas? | Wehrenberg argues it is not in Texas. | State contends it is applicable and not inconsistent with Art. 38.23. | Yes; independent source doctrine is applicable in Texas. |
| Is the independent source doctrine consistent with Texas’s Article 38.23 exclusionary rule? | Independence from taint still results in suppression under 38.23. | Independent source evidence is not “obtained” in violation and should be admissible. | Yes; doctrine is consistent with 38.23 and evidence from independent sources may be admitted. |
| Does independent source differ from inevitable discovery for Texas exclusionary purposes? | They are effectively the same; both rely on exceptions to exclusion. | They are distinct; independent source requires a truly independent lawful source. | They are distinguishable; independent source is compatible with 38.23 while inevitable discovery is not. |
Key Cases Cited
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984) (independent source for warrant-based evidence; breaks causal chain when independent source exists)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (independent source for evidence later obtained via lawful means; no taint if truly independent)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (attenuation of taint concept; evidence may be admissible if taint is sufficiently attenuated)
- Daugherty v. State, 931 S.W.2d 268 (1996) (attenuation approach and consistency with Art. 38.23; ordinary meaning of obtained)
- Garcia v. State, 829 S.W.2d 796 (1992) (inevitable discovery rejected in Texas; context for exclusionary rule)
- Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744 (1994) (attenuation doctrine compatible with Article 38.23; not a non-statutory exception)
- State v. Powell, 306 S.W.3d 761 (2010) (suggests lack of causal connection supports non-exclusion; dicta cited in Texas context)