From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shields v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Nov 7, 2006
No. 05-06-00138-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 7, 2006)

Opinion

No. 05-06-00138-CR

Opinion issued November 7, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 004-81495-05. Reversed and Remanded.

Before Justices MORRIS, WHITTINGTON, and RICHTER.


OPINION


In this appeal, Ryan Andrew Shields contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress because of insufficiency of probable cause to issue the search warrant in the case. The trial court determined the magistrate issuing the search warrant had probable cause to do so. The court then certified appellant's right to appeal the issue, accepted appellant's plea bargain in the case, and placed appellant on deferred adjudication for possession of two ounces or less of marijuana. Concluding the trial court erred in its assessment of probable cause to issue the warrant, we reverse the trial court's order deferring appellant's adjudication of guilt and remand for further proceedings.

Factual Background

Because appellant is challenging only the issuance of the search warrant in his case, we will limit our recitation of the facts to those alleged in the affidavit accompanying the warrant. In the early morning hours of June 15, 2004, Megan Carley was having a party at her parent's house. At approximately 5:00 a.m., she asked her remaining guests to leave, "secured" the house, and took a friend home. When she got back to the house approximately fifteen minutes later, she saw that the garage door was partially open and there were several compact discs lying in the driveway. Carley later discovered that "numerous" bottles of champagne and wine had been removed from her father's wine rack. Her purse was also missing. The purse contained credit cards issued to her and her mother. In addition, a Joe Namath autographed football was missing from the house. On June 17, 2004, Carley contacted police about the burglary. She told an officer that she suspected that "some of the guests from the party" had "possibly" committed the burglary. She stated that she "felt that some of the people stayed in her home as she locked it up and then later committed the burglary and left while she was gone." One of the people Carley suspected in the burglary was appellant. On June 15, 2004, she had "contacted" appellant, accused him of taking part in the burglary, and "advised him that he needed to return her property to her residence." On the morning of June 16, 2004, she found on the front doorstep of her house the Joe Namath autographed football in a cardboard box "that had previously held some of the wine that was stolen from her father's wine rack." Carley told the officer she believed appellant was keeping the wine and champagne at his residence.

Discussion

In both his issues on appeal, appellant challenges the search warrant issued in his case. He first contends the warrant was not based on probable cause and therefore the trial court should have suppressed the evidence obtained against him pursuant to the warrant. In reviewing a trial court's order on a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, giving great deference to the magistrate's decision to issue the warrant, we determine whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing. See Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808, 810-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). We determine whether there was a fair probability, not an actual showing, that evidence of a crime would be found in the named location, in light of the totality of the facts set forth in the affidavit. See Davis v. State, 144 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd). The allegations in a probable cause affidavit are sufficient if they would justify a conclusion that the objects of the search are probably on the named premises. See Ford v. State, 179 S.W.3d 203, 212 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd). Here, Carley's bare assertion that she felt appellant had been involved in the burglary was supported only by the fact that some unknown person had returned the autographed football the day after she accused appellant of taking part in the burglary and demanded that he return her belongings. Mere conclusory statements give the issuing magistrate virtually no basis for making a judgment about probable cause. The magistrate's actions cannot be a "`mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others.'" See Serrano v. State, 123 S.W.3d 53, 60 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, pet. ref'd) (citing and quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)). Moreover, the affidavit contains no evidentiary support for Carley's "belief" that her family's credit cards and wine would be found at appellant's apartment. The crucial factor in determining whether a search warrant is supported by probable cause "is not whether the target of the search is suspected of a crime, but whether it is reasonable to believe that the items to be seized will be found in the place to be searched." Serrano, 123 S.W.3d at 61. Of course, the issuing magistrate may make "reasonable inferences from the facts presented." Id. at 59. We do not believe, however, that the magistrate could have reasonably concluded from Carley's suspicions of appellant and the return of the football the day after she contacted him that the wine and the credit cards would probably be found at appellant's apartment. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion to suppress. We resolve appellant's first issue in his favor. Due to our disposition of appellant's first issue, we need not address his remaining issue. We reverse the trial court's order deferring adjudication and remand for further proceedings.


Summaries of

Shields v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Nov 7, 2006
No. 05-06-00138-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 7, 2006)
Case details for

Shields v. State

Case Details

Full title:RYAN ANDREW SHIELDS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Nov 7, 2006

Citations

No. 05-06-00138-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 7, 2006)