COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00561-CR
Michael Fred Wehrenberg § From the 43rd District Court
§ of Parker County (CR11-0091)
v. § November 8, 2012
§ Opinion by Justice Meier
The State of Texas § (p)
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that
there was error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the trial court’s order
denying Michael Fred Wehrenberg’s motion to suppress in part is reversed and
this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
By_________________________________ Justice Bill Meier COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00560-CR NO. 02-11-00561-CR
MICHAEL FRED WEHRENBERG APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 43RD DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY
OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant Michael Fred Wehrenberg appeals the trial court’s denial in part
of his motion to suppress evidence. We consider several dispositive issues in
this appeal, including (1) whether facts that a person is “going to” manufacture
methamphetamine provides exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry
into a residence, and (2) whether the federal independent source doctrine applies
2 to except the challenged evidence from the Texas exclusionary rule. Our answer
to both queries: No. We will reverse the trial court’s orders denying in part
Wehrenberg’s motion to suppress evidence and remand this cause to the trial
court.
II. BACKGROUND
Police had been conducting surveillance of a residence located at 501
Center Point Road in Parker County for about thirty days when on or about
August 31, 2010, a confidential informant notified investigators that a number of
individuals who were located at the residence were “fixing to” cook
methamphetamine. A few hours later, police officers, including Investigator Luis
Montanez, proceeded to the residence and, without a search warrant, entered
through the front door; removed several “subjects”—including Wehrenberg—from
inside and placed them in the front yard, handcuffed; and performed a protective
sweep of the premises. No one had given the police permission to enter the
residence, and no one was cooking methamphetamine when the police arrived
and “secured” the residence. Investigator Montanez prepared a search warrant
affidavit with the help of another investigator, and about an hour after police had
secured the residence, a magistrate signed a warrant authorizing a search of the
residence. Police then searched the residence and discovered the following
items, among others: a coffee grinder with residue, Oxycodone, lithium batteries,
empty blister packets, a vial with liquid, red and clear liquid, wet powder inside of
3 a shed, stripped lithium batteries, and empty pseudoephedrine boxes. Police
arrested Wehrenberg after conducting the search.
Wehrenberg moved to suppress all of the tangible evidence seized in
connection with both cases. The trial court granted the motion to suppress as to
any evidence seized pursuant to the initial “detention” of Wehrenberg but denied
the motion as to any evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant that police
later obtained and executed. The trial court did not enter findings of fact and
conclusions of law, although Wehrenberg requested such findings and
conclusions. Wehrenberg ultimately pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain,
to (a) possession of between four and two hundred grams of methamphetamine
and (b) possession or transport of chemicals with the intent to manufacture
methamphetamine, and the trial court sentenced him to five years’ confinement
in each cause. Wehrenberg preserved his right to appeal the trial court’s denial
in part of his motion to suppress.
III. METHAMPHETAMINE, WARRANTLESS ENTRY, AND SEGURA
Wehrenberg argues in his only point that the trial court reversibly erred by
denying in part his motion to suppress. He contends that in light of the trial
court’s determination that the initial warrantless entry into the residence was
illegal, his detention and removal from the residence was illegal, and “such
illegality tainted the subsequently obtained search warrant for the residence.”
Wehrenberg argues that the independent source doctrine does not apply to allow
admission of the complained-of evidence despite the illegal taint because “the
4 search warrant was not based entirely on information obtained before the illegal
entry.”
The State argues that the trial court did not err by denying Wehrenberg’s
motion to suppress because probable cause and exigent circumstances justified
the warrantless entry and, alternatively, the independent source doctrine applies
to except the evidence from the exclusionary rule.
A. Standard of Review
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence under a
bifurcated standard of review. Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2007); Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
We give almost total deference to a trial court’s rulings on questions of historical
fact and application-of-law-to-fact questions that turn on an evaluation of
credibility and demeanor, but we review de novo application-of-law-to-fact
questions that do not turn on credibility and demeanor. Amador, 221 S.W.3d at
673; Estrada v. State, 154 S.W.3d 604, 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Johnson v.
State, 68 S.W.3d 644, 652–53 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
When the record is silent on the reasons for the trial court’s ruling, or when
there are no explicit fact findings and neither party timely requested findings and
conclusions from the trial court, we imply the necessary fact findings that would
support the trial court’s ruling if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable
to the trial court’s ruling, supports those findings. State v. Garcia-Cantu, 253
S.W.3d 236, 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17, 25
5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We then review the trial court’s legal ruling de novo
unless the implied fact findings supported by the record are also dispositive of
the legal ruling. State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
B. Legality of Warrantless Entry
We begin our analysis by considering whether the initial warrantless entry
into the residence by police was legal. This is a logical starting point because if
the warrantless entry was justified, then there was no residual taint that could
have rendered the subsequent search invalid, and Wehrenberg’s argument—
which presupposes the illegality of the warrantless entry—fails. And although the
trial court suppressed any evidence seized pursuant to the initial detention of
Wehrenberg, we may still review the legality of the warrantless entry because we
are required to uphold the trial court’s ruling denying the motion to suppress if it
is supported by the record and correct under any theory of law applicable to the
case, even if the trial court gave the wrong reason for its ruling. See State v.
Stevens, 235 S.W.3d 736, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Armendariz v. State, 123
S.W.3d 401, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 974 (2004).
1. Exigent Circumstances
An unconsented police entry into a residence constitutes a search.
McNairy v. State, 835 S.W.2d 101, 106 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see Parker v.
State, 206 S.W.3d 593, 596 n.7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). A warrantless search of
a residence is presumptively unreasonable. Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680,
685 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). For a warrantless search to be justified, the State
6 must show (1) the existence of probable cause at the time of the search and
(2) exigent circumstances that made procuring a warrant impracticable. 1
McNairy, 835 S.W.2d at 106; see Estrada, 154 S.W.3d at 608. If either probable
cause or exigent circumstances are not established, a warrantless entry will not
pass muster under the Fourth Amendment. Parker, 206 S.W.3d at 597.
a. Probable Cause
Probable cause to search exists when reasonably trustworthy facts and
circumstances within the knowledge of the officer on the scene would lead a man
of reasonable prudence to believe that the instrumentality of a crime or evidence
of a crime will be found. McNairy, 835 S.W.2d at 106. Probable cause has been
described as “the sum total of layers of information and the synthesis of what the
police have heard, what they know, and what they observe as trained officers.
We weigh not individual layers but the ‘laminated total . . . [.]’” See id. (citing
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S. Ct. 1302 (1948)).
Investigator Montanez testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress
that a confidential informant had notified him that the occupants of the residence
located at 501 Center Point Road were preparing to cook methamphetamine.
Investigators had used the confidential informant in the past, and the informant,
who was familiar with methamphetamine and the manufacture of
1 No other established exceptions to the warrant requirement (voluntary consent and search incident to arrest) apply here. See McGee v. State, 105 S.W.3d 609, 615 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1004 (2003).
7 methamphetamine, had provided reliable information. In this circumstance, the
informant gave Investigator Montanez specific information about the method by
which the methamphetamine was being manufactured, and based on
Investigator Montanez’s knowledge and experience, he determined that the
occupants of the residence were utilizing the “shake-and-bake” method, which
involves combining numerous ingredients into a plastic bottle. Investigator
Montanez said that he corroborated the informant’s information by running a
check of the names of the people who were apparently inside of the residence,
which had been under police surveillance. Investigator Montanez explained that
he knew that Wehrenberg was at the residence because police had performed a
“knock and talk” at the same location about three months earlier, resulting in a
warrant being subsequently issued and Wehrenberg being arrested for
possession of a controlled substance.
Given the sum total of information available to Investigator Montanez,
including the reasonable inferences that could be drawn from that information,
probable cause existed at the time of the warrantless entry into the residence.
b. Exigent Circumstances
Three categories of exigent circumstances justify a warrantless intrusion
by police officers: providing aid or assistance to persons whom law enforcement
reasonably believes are in need of assistance; protecting police officers from
persons whom they reasonably believe to be present, armed, and dangerous;
and preventing the destruction of evidence or contraband. Gutierrez, 221
8 S.W.3d at 685. Investigator Montanez testified that he secured the residence
without a warrant “to prohibit destruction of evidence.”
Regarding destruction of evidence as an exigent circumstance, the State
must show “that the police could have reasonably concluded that evidence would
be destroyed or removed before they could obtain a search warrant.” McNairy,
835 S.W.2d at 107. Circumstances relevant to a reasonable determination by
searching officers that evidence might be destroyed or removed before they
could obtain a search warrant include (1) the degree of urgency and the amount
of time necessary to obtain a warrant, (2) the reasonableness of the belief that
the contraband is about to be removed, (3) the possibility of danger to the police
officers securing the site while a search is sought, (4) the suspects’ awareness of
police presence or surveillance, and (5) the ready destructibility of the
contraband. Id. (citing United States v. Rubin, 474 F.2d 262, 268 (3d Cir.), cert.
denied, 414 U.S. 833 (1973)).
The State concedes that there is no evidence to support the third and
fourth criteria set out immediately above, but it argues that there is evidence to
support the first, second, and fifth criteria. Specifically, the State directs us to
Investigator Montanez’s testimony that police secured the residence without a
warrant because “we were advised by the CI that the subjects were going to cook
methamphetamine prior to the Search Warrant. So we had to go in and secure
the residence.” Investigator Montanez explained that the confidential informant
had told him that the occupants of the residence “were fixing to cook
9 methamphetamine.” From this testimony, the State identifies two reasons why
exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry: (1) the volatile nature of
manufacturing methamphetamine, including by using the “shake-and-bake”
method; and (2) the inevitable “destruction” of various chemicals that, when
combined, are used to manufacture methamphetamine.
Investigator Montanez explained that the process of manufacturing
methamphetamine may cause volatile and hazardous conditions, including fires
and explosions. Regarding the “shake-and-bake” method, Investigator Montanez
said that “the chemical reaction in the process of making [methamphetamine] can
burn a hole through the bottom of the bottle, which can cause a huge fire. It can
go up pretty quick.” He related a past experience in which he and several other
officers had conducted a “knock-and-talk” at a suspected methamphetamine lab,
and after the subject opened and then slammed the door shut, a fire started
inside of the building and caused an explosion.2 In fact, Investigator Montanez
had noted in his report that “one of [the subjects inside the residence] had
already attempted to make [methamphetamine] and they had burned
themselves. They’d already caused a fire in the house once already.” Thus,
according to the investigator, “I was afraid that they would begin making the
methamphetamine and then a fire would break out.” However, despite his
2 Investigator Montanez did not say whether the “shake-and-bake” method of manufacturing methamphetamine had been utilized before the explosion occurred.
10 concern about a fire, Investigator Montanez agreed with the trial court that
“[m]ost people don’t blow themselves up making this stuff”; “[t]hey unfortunately
successfully make methamphetamine for use and distribution.”
Regarding the State’s contention that chemicals are “destroyed” when
combined to manufacture methamphetamine, it points to Investigator Montanez’s
testimony explaining the “shake-and-bake” method. He testified,
It’s where they combine all their ingredients, such as lithium batteries, the pseudoephedrine, various chemicals such as drain cleaner, sulphuric acid. They basically put all this inside a bottle, at which point when they drop the lithium battery, it causes a reaction with the water and all the other ingredients involved.
And then they shake it up and it creates a gas which separates the pseudoephedrine from the pill, which makes methamphetamine. And methamphetamine usually sits at the top of it after it’s done, which causes a fire reaction and things of that nature.
The State argues,
In light of this testimony and reviewing the definition of what it means to ‘manufacture’ a controlled substance, it can be concluded that some of the chemicals, especially the pseudoephedrine, are ‘destroyed’ during the production process by its conversion via ‘chemical synthesis’ into methamphetamine, possession of which is a separate criminal offense which was also then being investigated. [citations omitted]
Imminence is a critical, sometimes dispositive, aspect of an exigent
circumstances inquiry. The United States Supreme Court recognized this in
Roaden v. Kentucky, wherein it reasoned, “Where there are exigent
circumstances in which police action literally must be ‘now or never’ to preserve
the evidence of the crime, it is reasonable to permit action without prior judicial
11 evaluation.” 413 U.S. 496, 505, 93 S. Ct. 2796, 2802 (1973) (emphasis added).
Courts, including the Supreme Court, even go so far as to specifically refer to the
destruction-of-evidence category of exigent circumstances as the “imminent
destruction of evidence.” See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 754, 104
S. Ct. 2091, 2100 (1984) (“[M]ere similarity to other cases involving the imminent
destruction of evidence is not sufficient.”); United States v. Dawkins, 17 F.3d 399,
405 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“We have long recognized that the imminent destruction of
evidence may constitute an exigency excusing the failure to procure a warrant.”);
United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501, 1512 (6th Cir. 1988) (“When
police officers seek to rely on this exception in justifying a warrantless entry, they
must show an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the loss or
destruction of evidence is imminent.”).
Texas courts considering whether exigent circumstances justified a
warrantless entry to prevent the destruction or removal of evidence also must
consider imminence; the first, second, and fifth McNairy criteria—the degree of
urgency and the amount of time necessary to obtain a warrant, the
reasonableness of the belief that the contraband is about to be removed, and the
ready destructibility of the contraband—each impliedly reference the requirement
that the destruction or removal of evidence be imminent. See McNairy, 835
S.W.2d at 107. Caselaw analyzing exigent circumstances reflects this. In
McNairy, exigent circumstances justified a warrantless entry because police
smelled the strong odor of methamphetamine emanating from a trailer, heard the
12 back door of a trailer thrown open and people running into the brush, and anyone
remaining in the trailer would have known that the police were on the scene, and
the people could have destroyed the evidence in a matter of minutes. McNairy,
835 S.W.2d at 103, 107. In Estrada, exigent circumstances permitted a
warrantless entry into a residence from which the odor of marijuana was
emanating because a police officer heard voices and running inside of the
residence when he knocked and observed several people attempting to leave the
residence before he returned a second time to investigate further. Estrada, 154
S.W.3d at 609–10. And in Parker v. State, exigent circumstances existed for a
warrantless entry into a residence because officers smelled burned marijuana,
heard someone inside the residence announce that the police were at the front
door when they approached, and observed someone running upstairs after the
announcement. 223 S.W.3d 385, 388–89 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2005), aff’d, 206
S.W.3d 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In each of those cases, exigent
circumstances justified a warrantless entry because the police could have
reasonably concluded that the destruction or removal of evidence before a
search warrant could be obtained was imminent.
Cases involving the manufacture of methamphetamine are no exception to
the imminence requirement. In United States v. Rhiger, federal drug agents
observed appellant drive to several locations and purchase materials used to
manufacture methamphetamine. 315 F.3d 1283, 1285 (10th Cir.), cert. denied,
540 U.S. 836 (2003). About an hour after the agents saw appellant enter a
13 residence with the purchased materials, they “detected the smell of cooking
methamphetamine.” Id. “Fearing an active methamphetamine lab was in the
residence and could explode,” the agents entered the home without a warrant,
found an “active” lab in the garage, and arrested appellant. Id. Observing that
the “government presented evidence indicating the federal agents had
reasonable grounds to believe there was an immediate need to protect
themselves and the public from the potential explosion of the methamphetamine
lab,” the court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry in
light of, among other things, “the strong odor of cooking methamphetamine
emitting from” the residence and the agent’s “knowledge of the inherent
dangerousness of an active methamphetamine lab.” Id. at 1288–89 (emphasis
added).
In United States v. Walsh, officers received an anonymous tip that two
people were operating a methamphetamine lab at a particular residence. 299
F.3d 729, 730–31 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1066 (2002). Officers were
given consent to search all but two parts of the residence—a back bedroom and
a storage shed. Id. at 731. While outside near the storage shed, an officer
noticed empty cans of fluid on the back porch, an extension cord running to the
storage shed, white residue inside a blender pitcher, two-liter soda bottles, and
the strong smell of ether. Id. The officer opened the door to the shed and,
among other things, noticed a “white mist hanging in the air.” Id. Police later
obtained a warrant and searched the shed and back bedroom. Id. at 732. The
14 court of appeals held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry
into the storage shed because “the strong smell of ether and the equipment and
residue found in the carport area suggested on-going manufacture in the shed.”
Id. at 734 (emphasis added). According to the court, “Officer Cantrell could not
be certain no one was hiding (or worse yet, lying unconscious) in the shed, and
officer McPhail was justified in verifying that no untended heat source was
creating an imminent risk of fire or the explosion of volatile chemicals.” Id.
(emphasis added).
In United States v. Wilson, exigent circumstances justified a warrantless
entry into a house because officers smelled ether, which is commonly present
during the manufacture of methamphetamine; saw a liquid, which smelled like
ether, pouring out of the garage; heard movements from within the garage; and
after arresting two people on the doorstep of the house, reasonably believed that
other persons might be inside the house who could attempt to destroy evidence.
865 F.2d 215, 216–17 (9th Cir. 1989). The court noted that one of the officers
“recognized a pressing need to prevent the ether from exploding and causing a
fire.” Id. at 217.
Thus, whether it was the odor of ether, ether running on the ground, or the
observance of articles associated with the ongoing manufacture of
methamphetamine, in each of the three preceding cases, officers observed facts
that led them to believe that someone was actively manufacturing
methamphetamine. This fact was significant to the exigent-circumstances inquiry
15 because it sustained the officers’ belief that the destruction or removal of
evidence was imminent—a result that could have occurred due to the inherent
volatility associated with the active manufacture of methamphetamine.
Here, unlike the officers in Rhiger, Walsh, and Wilson, Investigator
Montanez did not testify that he observed anything that led him to believe that
someone was actively manufacturing methamphetamine at the residence.
Instead, the record demonstrates (1) that Investigator Montanez had information
that the occupants of the residence were “going to” or “fixing to” manufacture
methamphetamine, and (2) that officers arrived at the residence and entered
without a warrant.3 Therefore, notwithstanding that a fire was alleged to have
previously occurred at some point at the residence as a result of manufacturing
methamphetamine, in the absence of any evidence that could have led the
officers to believe that someone was actively manufacturing methamphetamine,
officers could not have reasonably concluded that the destruction or removal of
evidence was imminent due to either the inherently volatile nature of
manufacturing methamphetamine or the inevitable “destruction” of various
chemicals when combined to manufacture methamphetamine. See, e.g., State
v. Meeks, 262 S.W.3d 710, 726–27 (Tenn. 2008) (holding that hazards posed by
3 At one point during the hearing on the motion to suppress, Investigator Montanez testified that he had information that the occupants of the house “were cooking” methamphetamine, but there is nothing to indicate that he was referring to any evidence other than the information that was initially relayed to him by the confidential informant.
16 actively operating methamphetamine lab created exigent circumstances justifying
warrantless search); Williams v. State, 995 So.2d 915, 921 (Ala. 2008) (“Based
on the inherent dangers of an operating methamphetamine lab, we now hold that
discovery of such a lab by law-enforcement officials constitutes an exigent
circumstance justifying a warrantless search” (emphasis added)); State v.
Bilynsky, 932 A.2d 1169, 1176 (Me. 2007) (holding that exigent circumstances
justified warrantless entry because officers observed facts demonstrating that
manufacturing methamphetamine was “in progress”); Bishop v. Commonwealth,
237 S.W.3d 567, 570 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007) (“[T]he court did not clearly err by
finding that a search was justified by the exigent circumstances created when an
active methamphetamine lab was found in the trunk of a car . . . .” (emphasis
added)). Although probable cause existed at the time of the warrantless entry,
there is nothing in the record to indicate that the officers were confronted with a
“now or never”-type situation, one in which they had to act before obtaining a
warrant in order to head off the possible destruction or removal of evidence
caused by the volatility inherently associated with the actual manufacture of
methamphetamine. See Roaden, 413 U.S. at 505, 93 S. Ct. at 2802; State v.
Moore, 183 P.3d 158, 161 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (reasoning that “mere probable
cause that a methamphetamine lab exists is not per se an exigent circumstance
that will justify a warrantless entry into a home” (emphasis added)). Contrary to
the State’s argument, the first, second, and fifth McNairy criteria do not support a
conclusion that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.
17 Accordingly, we may not affirm the trial court’s denial of Wehrenberg’s motion to
suppress on this ground.
2. Emergency Doctrine
Investigator Montanez agreed with the trial court that a “community
caretaking function” existed to establish exigent circumstances, but the State has
expressly declined to provide any argument thereunder. In light of Investigator
Montanez’s testimony, we feel compelled to address this issue because it is
another basis upon which we could potentially affirm the trial court’s orders
denying in part Wehrenberg’s motion to suppress. See Stevens, 235 S.W.3d at
740; Armendariz, 123 S.W.3d at 404.
In Laney v. State, the court of criminal appeals explained that the
“community caretaker functions” serve as a basis for three separate exceptions
to the warrant requirement, one being the emergency doctrine. 117 S.W.3d 854,
860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The emergency doctrine “applies when the police
are acting, not in their ‘crime-fighting’ role, but in their limited community
caretaking role to ‘protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury.’” Id. at 861.
The court of criminal appeals said,
“We have used an objective standard of reasonableness in determining whether a warrantless search is justified under the Emergency Doctrine.” This objective standard looks at the police officer’s conduct and “takes into account the facts and circumstances known to the police at the time of the search.” Furthermore, we look to ensure that the warrantless search is “strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.”
Id. at 862 (citations omitted).
18 Here, we cannot conclude that the actions of Investigator Montanez and
the police were “totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of
evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Laney, 117 S.W.3d at 862
(quoting Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S. Ct. 2523, 2528 (1973)).
Police had been conducting surveillance of the residence for some time, and
after entering the residence, police handcuffed the occupants, obtained the
warrant, searched the residence, and discovered evidence that led to these
prosecutions. As the court of criminal appeals has observed, “[t]here is a
difference between rendering emergency aid and investigating the possibly
criminal cause of the emergency. The emergency doctrine justifies the former,
but it does not always justify the latter.” Bray v. State, 597 S.W.2d 763, 768
(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980).
Moreover, although Investigator Montanez expressed a concern about the
possibility of a fire resulting from the manufacture of methamphetamine, as
thoroughly explained above, there is no evidence that someone was
manufacturing methamphetamine.
We hold that the emergency doctrine could not have justified the officers’
warrantless entry into the residence. Therefore, we may not affirm the trial
court’s denial of Wehrenberg’s motion to suppress on this ground.
C. Segura Issues
Both Wehrenberg and the State direct us to Segura v. United States, 468
U.S. 796, 104 S. Ct. 3380 (1984). Wehrenberg argues that the independent
19 source doctrine, as articulated and applied in Segura, is irrelevant under the facts
of this case. The State argues that two different holdings in Segura apply to
allow admission of the challenged evidence—the holding regarding the
independent source exception and the holding addressing Segura’s seizure
argument.
Police arrested Segura in his apartment building on charges that he had
sold cocaine. Id. at 800, 104 S. Ct. at 3383. They escorted him up to his
apartment and knocked on the door. Id. When a lady answered the door, the
officers entered the apartment with Segura, without requesting or receiving
permission, and informed several others in the apartment that Segura was under
arrest and that a search warrant for the apartment was being obtained. Id. The
police conducted a limited security check of the apartment and noticed several
items of contraband, which they left undisturbed. Id. at 800–01, 104 S. Ct. at
3383. The search warrant was issued approximately nineteen hours later, upon
which the police conducted a more thorough search of the apartment and found
drugs, cash, and ammunition for a firearm. Id.
The district court suppressed all of the evidence seized from the
apartment—the items discovered in plain view during the initial search and the
items not in plain view that were discovered during the subsequent warrant
search. Id. at 801–02, 104 S. Ct. at 3383–84. The court of appeals affirmed the
district court as to the evidence discovered in plain view, holding that the
evidence was properly suppressed because the warrantless entry was not
20 justified by exigent circumstances. Id. at 802, 104 S. Ct. at 3384. But the court
of appeals reversed the district court’s judgment as to the evidence seized under
the valid search warrant. Id. at 803, 104 S. Ct. at 3384.
The Supreme Court was careful to indicate at the outset of its opinion that
the Government had not challenged the portion of the lower court’s opinion
holding that exigent circumstances did not justify the initial warrantless entry. Id.
at 804, 104 S. Ct. at 3385. Thus, the only issue before the Court was “whether
drugs and the other items not observed during the initial entry and first
discovered by the agents the day after the entry, under an admittedly valid
search warrant, should have been suppressed.” Id. It being undisputed that the
initial warrantless entry (or search) was illegal, Segura took the opportunity to
argue that an illegal seizure had also occurred, contending “that all of the
contents of the apartment, seen and not seen, including the evidence now in
question, were ‘seized’ when the agents entered and remained on the premises
while the lawful occupants were away from the apartment in police custody.” Id.
at 805, 104 S. Ct. at 3386 (emphasis added). The Court observed that Segura
had apparently advanced the argument in an attempt to avoid application of the
independent source exception. Id. at 806, 104 S. Ct. at 3386. Indeed, “[i]f all the
contents of the apartment were ‘seized’ at the time of the illegal entry and
securing,” then, as Segura’s argument proceeded, “presumably the evidence
now challenged would be suppressible as primary evidence obtained as a direct
result of that entry.” Id. But the Court disagreed with Segura’s argument,
21 pointed out that “[a] seizure affects only the person’s possessory interests; a
search affects a person’s privacy interests,” and observed that it “has frequently
approved warrantless seizures of property, on the basis of probable cause, for
the time necessary to secure a warrant, where a warrantless search was either
held to be or likely would have been held impermissible.” Id. The Court held
“that securing a dwelling, on the basis of probable cause, to prevent the
destruction or removal of evidence while a search warrant is being sought is not
itself an unreasonable seizure of either the dwelling or its contents. We reaffirm
at the same time, however, that, absent exigent circumstances, a warrantless
search . . . is illegal.” Id. at 810, 104 S. Ct. at 3388.
After addressing Segura’s seizure argument, the Supreme Court
considered the admissibility of the evidence obtained pursuant to the search
warrant and observed that “[n]one of the information on which the warrant was
secured was derived from or related in any way to the initial entry into [Segura’s]
apartment; the information came from sources wholly unconnected with the entry
and was known to the agents well before the initial entry.” Id. at 814, 104 S. Ct.
at 3390. The Court thus held:
[T]he evidence discovered during the subsequent search of the apartment the following day pursuant to the valid search warrant issued wholly on information known to the officers before the entry into the apartment need not have been suppressed as “fruit” of the illegal entry because the warrant and the information on which it was based were unrelated to the entry and therefore constituted an independent source for the evidence under Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S. Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920).
22 Id. at 799, 104 S. Ct. at 3382.
1. Segura’s Seizure Analysis
The State argues that the trial court could have denied Wehrenberg’s
motion to suppress based on the Supreme Court’s holding addressing Segura’s
seizure argument, in which the Court stated,
[W]here officers, having probable cause, enter premises, and with probable cause, arrest the occupants who have legitimate possessory interests in its contents and take them into custody and, for no more than the period here involved, secure the premises from within to preserve the status quo while others, in good faith, are in the process of obtaining a warrant, they do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against unreasonable seizures.
Id. at 798, 104 S. Ct. at 3382.
The State misreads Segura. Segura argued that an illegal seizure of the
apartment’s contents had occurred in an effort to head off any application of the
independent source doctrine. The Supreme Court, however, held that there was
no illegal seizure and proceeded to apply the independent source doctrine. The
Court did not hold that the challenged evidence was admissible because there
was no illegal seizure, as the State suggests. Indeed, that holding would have
rendered the entire discussion of the independent source doctrine dicta. The
evidence was instead admissible as a result of the independent source doctrine,
which applied notwithstanding the undisputed illegality of the initial warrantless
entry. Accordingly, the trial court could not have denied Wehrenberg’s motion to
23 2. Independent Source Doctrine
In addition to Segura’s discussion, the Fifth Circuit has concisely explained
the independent source doctrine as follows:
The exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment generally prohibits the introduction at trial of not only primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure, but also evidence discovered later that is derivative of an illegality, or constitutes “fruit of a poisonous tree.” The primary limit on this rule is that otherwise suppressible evidence will still be admitted if the connection between the alleged illegality and the acquisition of the evidence is “so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.” One example of this “attenuation” limit is known as the “independent source” doctrine, which permits the introduction of unlawfully discovered evidence when the police have acquired that evidence through a distinct, untainted source. Animating this doctrine is the recognition that the goal of the exclusionary rule is to put the police “in the same, not a worse, position that they would have been in if no police error or misconduct had occurred.” “When the challenged evidence has an independent source, exclusion of such evidence would put the police in a worse position than they would have been in absent any error or violation.”
United States v. Grosenheider, 200 F.3d 321, 327 (5th Cir. 2000) (citations
omitted).
Here, Investigator Montanez testified that all of the information contained in
the search warrant affidavit was derived from facts that were made known to him
by the confidential informant before the warrantless entry into the residence. We
have reviewed the affidavit, and Investigator Montanez’s testimony is accurate.
Because the police did not rely upon any of the information that they may have
gleaned during the initial warrantless entry to support their request for a search
warrant, this case would appear to fall squarely within the parameters of the
24 independent source doctrine. However, we have declined to apply the doctrine
in a previous case. In Oliver v. State, citing the Texas exclusionary rule, we
reasoned as follows:
The [federal] “independent source” and “inevitable discovery” exceptions advanced by the State are judicial exceptions to the judicially articulated exclusionary rule. In this case we are dealing with art. 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The article by its terms clearly excludes the admission into evidence of any evidence which has been illegally obtained. The article contains no exceptions to the rule. If there should be exception to the rule, similar to the exceptions which have been recently made to the exclusionary rule, such a change should come by way of amendment to art. 38.23, not by our ruling that the evidence is admissible in direct contradiction to the plain wording of the statute.[4]
711 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1986, pet. ref’d). Although we may
certainly revisit the reasoning underlying our prior opinion, we decline to do so in
this circumstance because on no less than two occasions subsequent to Oliver,
the court of criminal appeals has declined to recognize that the federal inevitable
discovery doctrine is an exception to the statutory Texas exclusionary rule. See
State v. Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d 268, 269–73 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Garcia v.
State, 829 S.W.2d 796, 798–800 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (citing Oliver). Of
course, the court of criminal appeals addressed the inevitable discovery doctrine,
not the independent source doctrine, but the doctrines “are actually two sides of
the same coin,” at least according to the Fifth Circuit. See Grosenheider, 200
4 Among other authorities, Wehrenberg moved to suppress the challenged evidence under code of criminal procedure article 38.23.
25 F.3d at 328 n.8. The Supreme Court has even stated as much: “The inevitable
discovery doctrine . . . is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source
doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered
through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have
been discovered.” Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 539, 108 S. Ct. 2529,
2534 (1988) (emphasis omitted). In light of the court of criminal appeals’s stance
on the inevitable discovery doctrine, and considering that several federal courts,
including the Supreme Court, do not draw a relevant distinction between the
inevitable discovery doctrine and the independent source doctrine, we are
hesitant to depart from our own precedent regarding the independent source
doctrine.
Further, unlike the inevitable discovery doctrine, the court of criminal
appeals has not squarely addressed whether or not the independent source
doctrine applies in Texas. In State v. Powell, police learned that appellee was
making forged checks in his home, and they obtained a warrant to search his
home and to seize, among other things, “checks and materials to make forged
checks.” 306 S.W.3d 761, 762 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). When the police
executed the search warrant, they seized two safes—which they could have
lawfully searched since the safes could have contained checks and materials for
making forged checks—and took them to the police station, where they searched
them the next day. Id. The safes contained methamphetamine, and appellee
was charged with a drug-related offense. Id. The trial court suppressed the
26 evidence, and the court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the safes were not
particularly described in the warrant as items to be seized. Id. at 764.
The court of criminal appeals disagreed with the lower court. Id. at 768. In
part I of the opinion, the court explained that the affidavit stated that someone
had used a forged check to buy a safe at Home Depot and that the warrant
authorized the police to enter appellee’s home and “to there search for the
property described in the affidavit, and to seize the same and bring the same
before me.” Id. (emphasis removed). It held that the police could have seized
both of the safes because they could have reasonably believed that one of the
safes was the one that was purchased at Home Depot with a forged check and
that was in the home. Id.
In part II of the opinion, the court of criminal appeals cited Hudson v.
Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (2006), which cited Segura, and
concluded as follows:
[A]ssuming that the seizure of the safes by the police violated appellee’s Fourth Amendment possessory rights in these safes, we believe that the ‘massive’ remedy of exclusion of the methamphetamine in this case is not required under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in [Hudson], which decided that the violation by the police of the knock-and-announce Fourth Amendment rule that preceded an otherwise lawful search of the defendant’s home pursuant to a search warrant did not require exclusion of evidence that was found during the search.
Id. at 769, 771. Because there was no causal connection between the unlawful
seizure of the safes and the lawful search of the safes, the violation of appellee’s
27 possessory interests in the safes had nothing to do with the lawful search of the
safes, and the evidence should not have been suppressed. Id. at 770–71.
We decline to construe Powell as impliedly adopting the independent
source doctrine. First, part II of the opinion is dicta. The court of criminal
appeals concluded in part I that the safes were not improperly seized because
they were particularly described in the affidavit. Id. at 768. Part II took the
analysis an unnecessary step further, “assuming” that the seizure of the safes
violated appellee’s rights. Id. at 769. Indeed, four judges declined to join in
part II of the opinion, describing it as “purely advisory.” Id. at 772–73 (Price, J.,
dissenting) (Womack, Johnson, and Cochran, JJ., concurring).
Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the court of criminal appeals would have
announced such a major development in Texas criminal jurisprudence without
expressly considering the interrelationship between the independent source
doctrine and article 38.23, as it did in Garcia, 829 S.W.2d at 798–800, and
Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d at 269–73, when analyzing the inevitable discovery
doctrine, and as it did in Johnson v. State when considering the attenuation
doctrine’s applicability in Texas. See 871 S.W.2d 744, 749–51 (Tex. Crim. App.
1994) (“If the evidence is not ‘obtained’ in violation of the law, then its admission
into evidence is not in contravention of Art. 38.23.”).
Accordingly, in light of the above authorities, we cannot affirm the trial
court’s denial in part of Wehrenberg’s motion to suppress on the ground that the
28 federal independent source doctrine applies to except the challenged evidence
from the Texas exclusionary rule. We sustain Wehrenberg’s only point.
IV. CONCLUSION
Having sustained Wehrenberg’s sole point, we reverse the trial court’s
orders denying Wehrenberg’s motion to suppress in part and remand this case to
the trial court for further proceedings.
BILL MEIER JUSTICE
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.
PUBLISH
DELIVERED: November 8, 2012