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

4 Citing cases

  1. Adkins v. State

    717 S.W.2d 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that the actual procurement of a warrant does not preclude use of exigent circumstances to justify a search in the event a warrant fails

    791 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983); Winkles v. State, 634 S.W.2d 289 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981); Richardson v. State, 622 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981); Juarez v. State, 586 S.W.2d 513 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979); Ramsey v. State, 579 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979); Doescher v. State, 578 S.W.2d 385 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); Jones v. State, 568 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); Lopez v. State, 535 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976); Evans v. State, 530 S.W.2d 932 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975); Riojas v. State, 530 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975); Carvajal v. State, 529 S.W.2d 517 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975); Abercrombie v. State, 528 S.W.2d 578 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); Powell v. State, 505 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); Collins v. State, 502 S.W.2d 743 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); McCrea v. State, 499 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Sessions v. State, 498 S.W.2d 933 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Cook et al. v. State, 497 S.W.2d 295 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Hegdal v. State, 488 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Polanco v. State, 475 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971); Wetherby v. State, 482 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Stoddard v. State, 475 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Adair v. State, 482 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Nicol v. State, 470 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971); Gaston v. State, 440 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Cr.App. 1969), cert. den. 396 U.S. 969, 90 S.Ct. 452, 24 L.Ed.2d 435 (1969); Ruiz v. State, 457 S.W.2d 894 (Tex.Cr.App. 1970) (Concurring opinion by Presiding Judge Onion); Gaston v. State, 440 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Cr.App. 1969); Hall v. State, 394 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Cr.App. 1965); Mc Lennan v. State, 109 Tex.Crim. 83, 3 S.W.2d 447 (1928). This Court's interpretation appears to be in accord with the majority viewpoint, that an otherwise insufficient warrant application may not be supplemented by unrecorded oral testimony.

  2. Ramsey v. State

    579 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)   Cited 48 times
    Discussing Franks and concluding that the decision requires retroactive application

    This Court had long held that a challenge to the affidavit's statement of probable cause could not go behind the face of the affidavit. Oubre v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 542 S.W.2d 875; Lopez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 535 S.W.2d 643; Phenix v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 759; Wetherby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 852. Most recently, in Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 568 S.W.2d 847, this Court again followed this rule and stated that "Our determination of the sufficiency of an arrest or search warrant affidavit's statement of probable cause is limited to the four corners of the affidavit." 568 S.W.2d at 855.

  3. Oubre v. State

    542 S.W.2d 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)   Cited 37 times
    Stating that "[i]t is well settled that the court will not look behind the allegations of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant"

    It is well settled that the court will not look behind the allegations of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant. Phenix v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 759; Wetherby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 852; Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 828. Apparently appellant contends that on an occasion subsequent to the arrest of appellant the same informer gave information which proved to be inaccurate. This obviously could have had no bearing upon the magistrate's determination of probable cause when he issued the search warrant which was the basis of the search in this cause.

  4. 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)."