Opinion
NO. 02-16-00070-CR
05-04-2017
TRACI RENA BROWN APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM THE 271ST DISTRICT COURT OF WISE COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. CR18279 MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant Traci Rena Brown moved to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant by contesting the warrant's validity. After the trial court denied her motion to suppress, Brown pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, to the offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver in an amount that was more than four grams but less than 200 grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a), (d) (West 2010). In accordance with Brown's plea bargain, the trial court placed her on deferred adjudication for a period of four years and ordered her to pay a fine of $1,500, restitution of $180, and court costs. In her sole issue on appeal, Brown argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress because the search warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause sufficient to justify the issuance of the search warrant. We will affirm.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2015, Investigator Michael Neagle of the Wise County Sheriff's Department signed an affidavit for a search warrant pertaining to Brown's residence in Chico. In his affidavit, Investigator Neagle described the location of the residence, stated that the residence was controlled by Brown and Johnathan Becker, and averred that a "2003 P[o]laris 4-wheeler . . . [and] missing parts and decals from said 4-wheeler and key to said 4-wheeler" were believed to be in the possession of Brown and Becker at the residence. Investigator Neagle went on to describe the circumstances justifying his request for the issuance of a search warrant, as set forth below in pertinent part:
On 02/01/2015 Investigator Neagle was contacted by Jim "Wes" Fowler who gave Neagle the following information. Fowler stated he had reported a 4-wheel ATV stolen to the Wise County Sheriff's Department approximately two years ago and the ATV still had not been recovered. Fowler stated that earlier in the day he had received a phone call from Justin Hastings about his stolen ATV. Fowler stated Hastings told him that Joey South, Tommy Maddux
and Tracy's Brown were the ones who stole his ATV. Fowler stated Hastings told him that Tracy Brown has had the 4-wheel ATV every sense it was stolen and that it is currently being stored in a garage at Brown's residence. Fowler stated Hastings told him that all the plastic and decals have been taken off the 4-wheeler.
On 02/02/2015 Neagle met with Justin Hastings at his residence in Chico. Neagle recorded the interview with a digital audio recorder.
Neagle told Hastings that Neagle wanted to talk to him about a 4-wheeler. Hastings replied "You already talk to Wes?" (Fowler) and Neagle told Hastings he had. Neagle asked Hastings to explain what he knew.
Hastings stated that in the beginning all he knew was that the 4-wheeler was stolen but didn't know where from. Hastings stated he just recently found out that the 4-wheeler belongs to Fowler.
Neagle asked Hastings when the last time he seen the 4-wheeler was and Hastings stated around a week ago. Hastings stated the 4-wheeler had been broke down and Paige Becker has been working on it and now it is running. Hastings stated that all the plastic finders and decals are off of the 4-wheeler. Neagle asked Hastings if he knew what brand of 4-wheeler it was and Hastings wasn't sure.
Neagle asked Hastings how he knew it was Fowler's and Hastings stated a friend of his told him it was Fowler's. Neagle again asked Hastings where the last place he had seen the 4-wheeler and Hastings stated it was in a garage at Brown's house on Buffalo Street in Chico and that was about a week ago.
Neagle asked Hastings if Brown or Becker had told him the 4-wheeler was stolen and that it was Fowler's. Hastings stated Becker told him it was stolen but didn't tell him it was Fowler's. Neagle asked Hastings who told him the 4-wheeler was Fowler's. Hastings stated Claudia Hale told him it was Fowlers. Neagle asked Hastings how Hale would know about the 4-wheeler. Hastings stated Tommy Maddux was involved in the theft and that Hale and Maddux were in a relationship and that's how Hale knew about it. Hastings stated the last time he seen the 4-wheeler was between one and two weeks ago on Brown's property and he has seen it several times
over the past couple of years on the property where Brown lives now and the property where she previously lived.
Neagle researched Wise County Sheriff's Office records and found where on 11/16/2012 Jim "Wes" Fowler reported Polaris 4-wheeler stolen from his property . . . . Fowler stated that at the time the 4-wheeler was stolen the key was in a saddle bag of the 4-wheeler and the key was stolen also. Neagle found that Fowler was able to provide the serial number for the 4-wheeler and the 4-wheeler was entered as stolen.
Neagle is asking for a search warrant to search the garage and residence on the property for the 4-wheeler, any missing parts or decals from the 4-wheeler and the key.
A magistrate issued a search warrant on February 2, 2015, authorizing police to search Brown's residence and garage for the 4-wheeler, missing parts and decals from the 4-wheeler, and the key to the 4-wheeler. That same day, police searched Brown's residence and garage and discovered methamphetamine in Brown's residence. Brown filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence seized during the search of her residence. The trial court denied Brown's motion.
III. BROWN'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
In her sole issue, Brown argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress because the search warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause sufficient to justify the issuance of the search warrant.
A. The Law
While we typically review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress by using a bifurcated standard of review, under which we give almost total deference to the historical facts found by the trial court and review de novo the trial court's application of the law, when the trial court is determining probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant, there are no credibility determinations. State v. McLain, 337 S.W.3d 268, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); State v. York, 404 S.W.3d 681, 683 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, pet. ref'd). Instead, the trial court is constrained by the four corners of the affidavit. McLain, 337 S.W.3d at 271; York, 404 S.W.3d at 683.
Accordingly, when reviewing a magistrate's probable cause determination, we apply the deferential standard of review articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317 (1983). Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); York, 404 S.W.3d at 683. Under that standard, we uphold the magistrate's probable cause determination "so long as the magistrate had a 'substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]' that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing." Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, 103 S. Ct. at 2331 (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S. Ct. 725, 736 (1960), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S. Ct. 2547 (1980)); see Swearingen, 143 S.W.3d at 810; see also McLain, 337 S.W.3d at 271-72; Flores v. State, 319 S.W.3d 697, 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Further, we may not analyze the affidavit in a hyper-technical manner; rather, we must interpret the affidavit "in a commonsensical and realistic manner, recognizing that the magistrate may draw reasonable inferences. When in doubt, we defer to all reasonable inferences that the magistrate could have made." McLain, 337 S.W.3d at 271. Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found at the specified location, and the facts stated in a search warrant affidavit "must be so closely related to the time of the issuance of the warrant that a finding of probable cause is justified." Id. at 272 (internal quotation omitted). "The focus is not on what other facts could or should have been included in the affidavit; the focus is on the combined logical force of facts that are in the affidavit." State v. Duarte, 389 S.W.3d 349, 354-55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). As long as the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed, the magistrate's probable cause determination will be upheld. McLain, 337 S.W.3d at 271.
Although a search warrant affidavit may not be based solely on hearsay or conclusory statements, a search warrant affidavit is not insufficient on those grounds so long as a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay exists or corroborating facts within the officer's knowledge exists. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 241-44, 103 S. Ct. at 2334-35; Reyes v. State, No. 02-11-00327-CR, 2013 WL 1338023, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 4, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Even double hearsay may be used in a search warrant affidavit to show probable cause if the underlying circumstances indicate a substantial basis for crediting each level of hearsay. Gonzales v. State, 481 S.W.3d 300, 312 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, no pet.); State v. Walker, 140 S.W.3d 761, 766 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
When analyzing whether a substantial basis exists for determining that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, courts often rely on information provided by informants. See Duarte, 389 S.W.3d at 355-57. "Information provided to police from a citizen-informant who identifies herself and may be held to account for the accuracy and veracity of her report may be regarded as reliable." Cook v. State, 509 S.W.3d 591, 601 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, no pet.). Indeed, when an unquestionably honest citizen comes forward with a report of criminal activity, courts have found rigorous scrutiny of the basis of the citizen's knowledge unnecessary. Duarte, 389 S.W.3d at 356; Perez v. State, No. 02-14-00279-CR, 2015 WL 10324050, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 10, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). This is because the citizen-informant is presumed to speak with the voice of honesty and accuracy. Duarte, 389 S.W.3d at 356. By contrast, "[t]he criminal snitch who is making a quid pro quo trade does not enjoy any such presumption; his motive is entirely self-serving." Id. (emphasis removed).
B. Application of the Law to the Facts
Brown contends that the allegations contained in the affidavit should not be credited because they rely on hearsay, are conclusory, and do not connect the stolen 4-wheeler with her residence. We cannot agree. The allegations stem from information provided to Officer Neagle by Justin Hastings, a named citizen- informant. Because he is a citizen-informant, the information provided by Hastings is regarded as inherently reliable, and rigorous scrutiny of the basis of his knowledge is unnecessary. Cook, 509 S.W.3d at 601; Perez, 2015 WL 10324050, at *2; see Duarte, 389 S.W.3d at 356.
As reflected in the four corners of the search warrant affidavit, Hastings personally saw a 4-wheeler in Brown's garage approximately a week before the affidavit was signed. Hastings told Officer Neagle that he saw the 4-wheeler "several times over the past couple of years on [Brown's Chico property] and the property where [Brown] previously lived." He also told Officer Neagle that the 4-wheeler had been broken down but that Paige Becker had been working on it, and it was now running. Hastings relayed to Officer Neagle that Paige had told him that the 4-wheeler was stolen. He further told Officer Neagle that Claudia Hale, the girlfriend of one of the individuals alleged to be involved in the theft of the 4-wheeler, told him that the 4-wheeler was Fowler's. Officer Neagle also researched Wise County Sheriff's Department records and determined that Fowler had reported the 4-wheeler stolen on November 16, 2012. Based on Hastings's first-hand observations, coupled with the statements made to him by individuals connected to the stolen 4-wheeler, together with the corroboration by Officer Neagle that Fowler had indeed reported his 4-wheeler as stolen, we hold that the magistrate had a substantial basis to conclude that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, 103 S. Ct. at 2331; McLain, 337 S.W.3d at 271; Reyes, 2013 WL 1338023, at *5; see also Perez, 2015 WL 10324050, at *3 ("[T]he affiant got his information from two independent sources regarding a drug dealer named Pee Wee. Although neither source appeared particularly reliable, when taken together, one tended to corroborate the other.").
The relationship between Paige Becker and Johnathan Becker is unclear from the four corners of the affidavit.
Brown next argues that even if the affidavit established probable cause to search her garage, it did not establish probable cause to search her residence. In support of that proposition, Brown cites Long v. State, 132 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). In Long, the search warrant explicitly authorized the search of a gambling premises—described as a "silver in color passenger train car"—but did not authorize the search of Long's home—described as a "red caboose"—that was located nearby. Id. at 444. In holding that the search of Long's home was unlawful, the court of criminal appeals relied on the fact that there was "no descriptive language in [the] warrant that would authorize the search of [Long's] home." Id. The court also relied on the fact that the search warrant affidavit did not contain any facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that the gambling devices, paraphernalia, and business records described in the affidavit would be found in Long's home. Id. The court of criminal appeals analogized the situation to "looking for the stolen lawnmower in the upstairs bedroom." Id. at 453.
Long is distinguishable from the present case. Here, the affidavit specifically mentioned Brown's residence and specifically authorized a search of Brown's residence. The affidavit also mentioned that the key to the 4-wheeler was stolen. Although no one mentioned seeing the key in either Brown's residence or garage, Hastings described the 4-wheeler as "running." A reasonable inference could be drawn that a key is required to make a 4-wheeler run, particularly when the affidavit mentioned that the 4-wheeler once had a key. A reasonable inference could also be drawn that the 4-wheeler key would be kept in Brown's residence, a location presumably more secure than in her garage alongside the 4-wheeler, perhaps on a keyring with other keys. See McLain, 337 S.W.3d at 271 ("[T]he magistrate may draw reasonable inferences. When in doubt, we defer to all reasonable inferences that the magistrate could have made.").
After reviewing the search warrant affidavit realistically and with common sense and after giving deference to the magistrate's determination, we hold that the magistrate's decision had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed to search Brown's garage and residence. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, 103 S. Ct. at 2331; McLain, 337 S.W.3d at 271; York, 404 S.W.3d at 683. Under the totality of the circumstances, we hold there was a "fair probability" that evidence of Fowler's stolen 4-wheeler and key would be found at Brown's garage and residence. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S. Ct. at 2332; McLain, 337 S.W.3d at 272; York, 404 S.W.3d at 683.
We overrule Brown's sole issue.
IV. CONCLUSION
Having overruled Brown's sole issue, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
/s/ Sue Walker
SUE WALKER
JUSTICE PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. GABRIEL, J., concurs without opinion. DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: May 4, 2017