X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:A Brazoria County grand jury indicted the appellee, Matthew Thomas Garrett, for the three separate offenses of possession, with intent to deliver, of stanozolol (between 28 and 200 grams), cocaine (between 4 and 200 grams), and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (less than one gram). The state appeals from the trial court’s interlocutory order granting in part appellee’s motion to suppress. A state trooper stopped the the appellee for speeding and mud-flap violations. The trooper observed additional vehicle violations after the stop. The trooper was unable to show or to explain the windshield violations to appellee from the ground because of the truck’s height. Stepping up on the truck, the trooper opened the driver’s door and saw a bottle of Crown Royal that appeared open in plain view on the back floorboard. The appellee consented to a search of the truck. During the post-consent search, the trooper found marijuana seeds, stems and residue scattered throughout the truck and a vial containing a white residue on the back seat. The appellee never withdrew his consent during the search of the truck. A narcotics officer passed by the scene of the search and stopped. The trooper testified that the officer informed him that, in the recent past, she had received a “Crime Stoppers” tip that appellee was carrying large amounts of narcotics in one of his truck’s door panels. The trooper arrested the appellee after the vial’s residue tested positive for cocaine. The officers called a drug dog to the scene to search the truck. The trooper testified that the dog positively alerted for narcotics. After the dog had alerted, the truck was driven to the sheriff’s department. After a search warrant was obtained, the truck’s door panels were searched. The trooper testified that drugs were found in the driver’s side door panel. The appellee filed a motion to suppress all evidence and statements obtained from the initial vehicle stop through the final search of the truck, alleging that the detention, arrest, searches and seizures were illegal. The trial court partially denied the appellee’s motion, reciting in the order that the appellee had been legally detained by the law enforcement officers with sufficient cause to stop, detain and search the truck at the time of the stop, and that the evidence seized during the initial search was legally obtained. However, the trial court also partially granted the appellee’s motion, reciting in the order that the search warrant that was eventually obtained was an evidentiary search warrant that did not explicitly list the five items seized from the truck’s door panel. Additionally, the court’s order stated that the items seized from the door panel were not in plain view. The trial court concluded that the items seized subsequent to the search warrant had been illegally obtained and consequently suppressed the evidence seized from the truck doors. The trial court’s order did not mention the events occurring between the arrest and the warrant, which would have included testimony concerning the “Crime Stoppers” tip and the dog-sniff alert. The state did not request any findings of fact or conclusions of law, and the trial court did not file any. HOLDING:The court reverses the order of the trial court and remands the cause with instructions for the trial court to enter an order denying that portion of the suppression motion that it previously granted. Because the trial court denied the appellee’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the initial search � which, according to the trooper’s testimony, occurred immediately after the appellee consented to that initial search � the court infers that the trial court believed that the appellee in fact consented to a search of the truck for “illegal contraband.” As a matter of law, the court determines, the appellee’s consent obviated the need for a search warrant to search the door panels or to seize items visible once the officers removed the panels. OPINION:Taft, J.; Taft, Alcala and Higley, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.