Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Wetherby v. State

482 S.W.2d 852 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Wetherby v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Cassias v. State

    719 S.W.2d 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 175 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding affidavit insufficient to establish probable cause where affiant alleged, among other things, that suspects were seen “carrying brick type packages believed to be marihuana” as well as plastic tubs and tubing

    The former holding, however, seems to have originated in Pecina v. State, supra, wherein the Court ruled, in the face of a claim that the warrant affidavit contained no showing the informant could readily recognize contraband: "The affidavit presented here is substantially the same as that approved by this court in Wetherby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 852. See also Cummins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 452.

  2. Barnes v. State

    520 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that unexplained possession of stolen property is sufficient to sustain conviction for theft

    In Phenix v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 759, on p. 765, we said: 'In Wetherby v. State, (Tex.Cr.App.) 482 S.W.2d 852 (1972) this court said: '. . . it is well settled that a court will not look behind the allegations of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant. Brown v. State, 437 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.Cr.App.1968).

  3. Pecina v. State

    516 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)   Cited 37 times
    In Pecina v. State, 516 S.W.2d 401, we held that an affidavit need not state an informer's qualifications to identify heroin.

    The affidavit stated that the informer had been in the appellant's apartment within six hours and had observed her remove a brown paper bag, from a drawer of a chest in the bedroom, which contained approximately one hundred foil wrapped packets of heroin. The affidavit presented here is substantially the same as that approved by this Court in Wetherby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 852. See also Cummins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 452.

  4. Collins v. State

    502 S.W.2d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 10 times

    In determining the sufficiency of the affidavit, we are bound by the four corners of the document. Gaston v. State, 440 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Cr.App. — 1969) (Onion, J., concurring), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 969, 90 S.Ct. 452, 24 L.Ed.2d 435; Wetherby v. State, 482 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Cr.App. — 1972). Examining the affidavit in such manner, we hold that it does reflect adequate probable cause and sufficient 'underlying circumstances' to satisfy the requirements of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723. Appellant's first ground of error is overruled.

  5. Phenix v. State

    488 S.W.2d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 73 times
    Holding that where a search warrant incorporates the supporting affidavit and the affidavit describes the place to be searched with particularity, this is sufficient to make the description of the place to be searched part of the warrant

    In his ninth ground of error appellant alleges that the trial court erred in sustaining the State's objection to defense counsel's request for the names of the persons described in the affidavit supporting the search warrant as "users and sellers of narcotics' who were seen frequenting appellant's apartment. In Wetherby v. State, 482 S.W.2d 852 (1972), this court said, ". . . it is well settled "that a court will not look behind the allegations of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant." Brown v. State, 437 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.Cr.App. 1968)."

  6. Fry v. State

    493 S.W.2d 758 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)   Cited 16 times

    See, Adair and Via v. State, 482 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Yantis v. State, 476 S.W.2d 24 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Wetherby v. State, 482 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). It is observed, however, that Officer Presley knew there was a car as described by the informer.