*2 illegal drugs to arrive at the location of the HEDGES, Before COHEN and transaction, leave, and then return with the JJ. illegal drugs exchange. for the actual midnight, After the sellers’ vehicle re- OPINION residence, turned to the and three men HEDGES, Justice. matching description given by the infor- got mant out of the vehicle. The officers After the trial court denied his motion to identify were able to two of'these men as suppress, appellant Charles Robert Villarreal “Big “Benny.” John” Appellant, and un- pled guilty felony to the posses- offenses of informant, named individual described sion of possession marihuana and of a con- was the driver of the vehicle. and trolled substance with intent to deliver. The his two bags codefendants removed two and trial punishment court assessed eight- at a box packaging from the vehicle. The ap- years confinement. contends that peared wrapping consistent with used to con- the trial court in overruling erred his motion large ceal a amount of marihuana. Officer because rights his arrest violated that, Redman stated at that night, time of guaranteed by the United States and the would have taken two to four hours to obtain Texas constitutions. We affirm. a warrant. Facts got patrol officers out of them cars approached and the residence in order to On November Officer Walter investigate suspicions. their The officers police Redman of the department identified themselves and told the three men anonymous phone received an call that three stop, but the men hurried into the resi- specifically Hispanic described go- men were John) dence. Mr. (Big Balli locked and ing large quantity to sell a of marihuana to body blocked the front door with his as Offi- specifically two described white men at a cer Redman identified himself and the other particular in residence Houston sometime police. officer as attempted Mr. Varner Two of the sellers were identi- jump out of one of the windows the side of “Big fied as “Benny,” John” and and the two but he retreated when he saw the purchasers “George” were identified as and officers. The officers knocked on the door “Michael.” The informant described the sell- . but were Fearing denied entrance. destruc- third, ers’ vehicle and stated that a unnamed tion of contraband and mindful of their own seller of marihuana would be its driver. safety safety as well as the of individuals The informant told Officer Redman that residence, inside the the officers broke purchasers the two would be inside the resi- through the door and entered the residence. Varner, dence with Rick the owner of the The officers testified that it is common for residence, and that weapons there were in- weapons to be in drug involved trans- side the residence. Officer Redman then actions. confirmed that Mr. Varner lived at that resi- residence, Inside the the officers detected dence and that he had a criminal record. strong odor of marihuana and observed Officer Redman drove to the residence packages plain several of marihuana in view. Gary with Officer Dora of police the Houston A dog narcotics posi- detection also made a department and found that the informant’s tive alert for marihuana. Inside the resi- description of the residence was accurate. Balli, dence were and codefendants parked The vehicles in front matched the Covarrubia, Varner, George J. and Jacob description given by the informant for the Ray Michael Marlott. supposed purchasers’ and sellers’ vehicles. Having confirmed concerning the information Mr. during Varner’s wife arrived the inves- vehicles, location description tigation, the offi- and Officer Redman obtained her They cers left the area. returned later written consent for a search of the residence. He A search of the residence revealed several view, staying overnight at the Varner weapons, plain residing some in cash, was, however, $59,000 stay if was also “welcome some which home. He plain Varner told the officers had not stored view. Mrs. he wanted to.” belong large in the Varner personal property that the amount cash did not *3 him to do agreement to her and her husband. for nor was there so. was told Redman that he Officer appeals that the he the criminal has held the owner of vehicle had driven to The court of by a another guest then consented to in a hotel room rented a vehicle, expectation of the which revealed more not have a reasonable search of does State, v. 639 drug paraphernalia, privacy Clapp as as in that room. marihuana well 949, cocaine, phone. (Tex.Crim.App.1982). a 953 cellular S.W.2d possesso- no An individual who has Suppress Motion to premises, ry proprietary or interest in the error, points appellant argues In four of guest, has in the is a no clothes but overruling his that the trial court erred in legitimate privacy belongings, has no other marijuana motion the to evidence of Calloway premises interest in the searched. and cocaine because his arrest and the subse State, 645, (Tex.Crim.App. 650 v. 743 S.W.2d quent his seizure of contraband violated 1988). Additionally, has val an individual no Const, rights guaranteed by the U.S. amend. expectation privacy in a where he id of home Const, IV; I, 9;§ art. and Tex.Code Tex. simply guest does not control en a (Vernon & CRIM.P.Ann. art. 14.01. 1977 premises. v. or exits from the Black trances Supp.1994). State, 700, (Tex.App. 776 701 S.W.2d - Dallas ref'd). 1989, pet. standing that to contends he has challenge entry the officers’ of the Varner precedent have found no We residence and the attendant search and sei privacy expectation an of for impute would zure invit of the evidence because he was an standing guest to purposes the of an invited guest. standing In order to achieve to overnight guest. recognize who is not an We challenge, appellant prove mount this must Olson, 91, 98, v. 495 110 that Minnesota U.S. legitimate expectation priva that he had a of (1990) 1689, 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d found S.Ct. 85 cy premises Calloway v. the searched. legitimate overnight guest a that an had State, 645, (Tex.Crim.App. 743 S.W.2d 650 privacy in expectation of the residence State, 1988); 661, v. 692 669 Wilson S.W.2d the v. spent he United States which (Tex.Crim.App.1984). Cir.) (5th Wilson, 1298, F.3d 1302 We 36 expectation to the this decline to extend
Standing right is an individual’s appellant. casual visitor such complain allegedly govern about an search, mental exclude evidence. appellant did have stand- Finding that legal standing complain about the To have challenge of the Varners’ ing to the search search, person ity governmental of a must points appellant’s four we personally he had a reasonable show that privacy. expectation of United States v. Ja judgment of trial court. affirm the the We cobsen, 121-22, 104 466 U.S. S.Ct. (1984); 1661-62, Rakas 80 J., WILSON, dissenting. 128, 143, 421, 430, Illinois, 439 U.S. 99 S.Ct. Justice, (1978); dissenting. 387 United States v. Sal
58 L.Ed.2d
vucci,
83, 91-92,
100 S.Ct.
upon the hold
respectfully
based
I
dissent
(1980); Rawlings v.
65 L.Ed.2d
Supreme Court in
ing of the United States
S.Ct.
Kentucky, 448 U.S.
91, 99, 110
495 U.S.
Minnesota
(1980).
2561,
home in case before us will not stand guidance. appel-
under Olson’s Whether longer,
lant would stayed here have and un- terms, majority’s ceased to be a visitor,
casual was determined the conduct police, Here, and not
majority says precedent it finds no an impute expectation privacy
would standing an invited guest.
who not an overnight I would
respectfully suggest that 110 S.Ct. at
1689, suggests otherwise.
GILGON, INC., Appellant, HART, al., Appellees.
Hollis et
No. 13-93-277-CV.
Corpus Christi.
Rehearing Overruled