Rivas, Gerardo Tomas

Opinion

i o-z -t Z-oG 2-GfL oz.- t z- u<./3- crz, ~-3 t;43 '1) \

IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS DATE: :JU I~ do, !Jo16 NO.(S) PD-0490-13 & PD-0491~13 GERARDO TOMAS RIVAS #-1766735 VACATED & REMANDED RECONSIDERATION POWLEDGE UNIT T/C N - 64 ..

2nd COURT OF APPEALS 1400 FM 3452 NO.(S) 02-12-00062-CR & 02-12-00063-CR PALESTINE, TEXAS 75803 - 2350 JUDGEMENT ON REMAND AFFIRMED

fJrECE~VED ~~

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS RECEIVED OF TEXAS lCOURT OF CRmmNI\l APPEALS < AUG 0 5 2015 AUG 1 o 2015 NO.(S) PD-0490-13 & PD-0491-13 COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS DEBRA SPISAK, CLERK A~~~ ~(COS~a, CU@irrk GERARDO TOMAS RIVAS, RELATOR

v.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

RESPONDENT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE(S) OF SAID COURT,

COMES NOW, GERARDO TOMAS RIVAS, PRO~SE, RELATOR herein, complaining of the COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGEMENT ON REMAND, AFFIRMING NO.(S) 02-12~00062-

CR & 02.,.-12-00063-CR; from CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 of TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO.(S) 1215971D & 1215973D, a CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT, EVEN EXCLUDING THE DOG SNIFF, THE MAGISTRATE COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT ESTABLISHED PROBABLE CAUSE (Based on this conclusion, we do not reach whether JARDINES should apply retroactively. See Tex R App P 47.1, Id. at SEPTEMBER 25, 2014, OPINION ON REMAND, PER CURIAM, at pg. 9).

Not only did the COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS enter into a CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETIQN, they have enjoined into "A CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND IGNORE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW PRECEDENTS" with said conscious, intentional, and reckless MOVE / ORDER to undermine the precedented RULE OF LAW, thereby, removing themselves from anv realm of immunity and/or absolute immunity through said careless acts under COLOR OF JUDICIAL OFFICE, COLOR OF LAW, AND ABUSE OF POWER in said commissions, with THE STATE OF TEXAS, for the POLICE SEARCH IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, ART. I § 9 of TEX CONST. WITH ADOPTED STATUTORY EXCLUSIONARY RULE TEX CODE CRIM PROC ART 38.23, MAGISTRATES QUESTIONABLE JURISDICTION FOR WARRANT ISSUANCE, AND SUPREME COURT CASF.S OF KYL T.O WITH CONFIRMATION ADDRESSED IN JARDINES CASE, FOR "THEN BINDING PRECEDENTS SINCE 2001."

2

I

BACKGROUND

RELATOR was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance with the. intent to deliver. A dog sniff at his front door lead to the charges against him. The 'SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS did not have the benefit of JARDINES, accordingly this TEXAS COURT 0~ CRIMINAL APPEALS GRANTED RELATOR'S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, VACATED THE JUDGEMENTS of the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS and REMANDED these cases to the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS in light of JARDINES (RIVAS II, NO.(S) PD-0490-13 & PD-0491-13, DELIVERED OCTOBER 23, 2013, Id. at per curiam, opin.) (Publish).

OPINION ON REMAND, the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, at I. INTRODUCTION, Conclude that JARDINES does not affect the outcome, and affirm (NO.(S) 02-12-00062-CR & 02-12- 00063-CR, per curiam, opin. delivered SEPTEMBER 25, 2014, Id. at *4, 9). With a·final conclusion, "Therefore, we conclude that, even excluding the dog sniff, the magistrate could have reasonably found that the search warrant affi~avit established probable cause. (Ln. 5, Based on this conclusion, we do not reach whether-JARDINES should apply retroactively. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.) III. CONCLUSION, Having considered our prior opinion in light of JARDINES as directed by the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, we affirm the trial court's judgement", Id. at *9, supra.

II

CASE(S) DISCUSSION

-Based on-RELATOR'S arrest for possession of the controlled'substances in the cases supra, RIVAS IL Id., the STATE moved to adjudicate RELATOR'S guilt in three prior drug possession cases. RIVAS v STATE (RIVAS I), NO.(S) 02-11-00203-CR, 02-,11-00204-CR, and 02-ll-00205-CR, 2012 WL 5512450, at *1-:-2, 5 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth, Nov. 15, 2012, no pet.)(mem. op., not designated for publication).

RELATOR filed a MOTION TO SUPPRESS, which the trial court denied. RELATOR then entered an open plea of guilt to the charges supra, RIVAS II, Id., and the trial court sentenced him to 17 years in prison on_each count, to run concurrently. (RIVAS II, CRIMINAL-DISTRICT COURT NO.4 OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, NO.(S) 1215971D & 1215973D).

On APPEAL, RELATOR argued that the trial court erred in denying his MOTION TO SUPPRESS citing BOTH, KYLLO v UNITED STATES, 533 US 27, 121 S Ct 2038, 150 LEd 2d 94, NO. 99-8508, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUNE 11, 2001, argued FEBRUARY 20, 2001, DECIDED UNDER PRIVACY GROUNDS; and, FLORIDA v JARDINES, 569 US I 133 s Ct 1409, 185 L Ed 2d 495, 81 USLW 4209, .NO. -ll-564, writ of certiorarL delivered MARCH 26, 2013, DECIDED UNDER PROPERTY RUBIC; ·intet~- alia .. The SECOND DISTRICT APPEALS: 'COURT disagreed and affirmed 'the ·convicbons._ RIVAS. IL NO. (S) 02-12-00062-,CR & 02-:-12,..::00063-CR, 2013 >-

II

CASE(S) DISCUSSION

(CONTINUED)

Tex. App. LEXIS 2730 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth MARCH 14, 2013)(not designated for publicat1on). The SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS' determination for affirmation of conviction was based solev as, "after determining that the MAGISTRATE had a SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR CONCLUDING that the SEARCH WARRANT WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE BASED ON

A DRUG-SNIFFING POLICE DOG'S ALERT TO RIVAS' FRONT- .DOOR eE THE SAME DAY THAT THE WARRANT WAS OBTAINED AND EXECUTED." Id. at *1, 5. This was the reasoning even though, "RIVAS argues that the warrantless open-air:: sniff of his apartment door was illegal; however, this court (SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS) has held otherwise. See ROMO v STATE, 315 SW 3d 565, 573 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref'd)(citing RODRIGUEZ v STATE, 106 SW 3d 224, 228-29 (Tex. App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 540 US 1189 (2004), for the proposition that 'A.DRUG DETECTION IXJG'S SNIFF OF THE FRONT IXX>R OF A DEFENDANT 1 S HOME IS LEGAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE AREA AROUND AN UNENCLOSED FRONT IXX>R 1 }. Thus, we (SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS) hold that the open-air dog sniff of the front door to RIVAs'·apartment was LEGAL and, consistent with our (SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS) .holding ih RIVAS I, was sufficient to establish probable cause for the search warrant. See 2012 WL 5512450, at *5. We (SECOND COURT OF APPEALS) overrule RIVAS' first point." RIVAS II, supra, Id. at 3, 4.

The RULINGS IN BOTH, ROMO and RODRIGUEZ, supra, Id.i are in DIRECT CONTRADICTICE to KYLLO, supra, Id., as RULED by the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS INCLUDING THEIR RULING OF RIVAS I & II, supra, Id .. This ASSERTICE IS PRECEDENTED ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN: JARDINES, supra, Id., as (3) three SUPREME COURT JUSTICES CONCUR, JUSTICE KAGAN, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join in JARDINES, which was DECIDED UNDER A PROPERTY RUBIC, to CONCLUDE THAT THE ISSUES OF JARDINES HAD ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED UNDER PRIVACY GROUNDS EXPLAINED IN KYLLO, supra, Id.; KYLLO, supra, Id., THE KYLLO COURT HELD that POLICE OFFICERS CONDUCTED A SEARCH when th~y used a thermalimaging device to detect heat emenating FROM A PRIVATE HOME (A TRIPLEX}, EVEN THOUGH THEY COMMITTED NO TRESPASS. HIGHLIGHTING, OR INTENTION TO, DRAW BOTH A "FIRM AND A

BRIGHT LINE AT THE ENTRANCE. '10 THE HOUSE (A TRIPLEX}. KYLLO, supra, Id. at 40. The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ANNOUNCED THE FOLLOWING RULE: WHERE, (ROMO, RODRIGUEZ, and RIVAS I & II, AS HERE), THE GOVERNMENT USES A DEVICE THAT IS NOT IN GENERAL PUBLIC USE, TO EXPLORE DETAILS OF THE HOME (APARTMENT, DUPLEX 1 ETC.} THAT VlXJLD PREVIOuSLY HAVE

BEEN ~ABLE WITHOUT PHYSICAL INTRUSION 1 THE SURVEILLANCE 1 IS A SEARCH 1 AND

PRESUMPTIVELY UNREASONABLE WITHOUT A WARRANT." Ibid.

That "FIRM AND BRIGHT RULE GOVERNS THESE CASES:" The POLICE OFFICERS HERE CONDUCTED

3 3

II

CASE(S) DISCUSSION

(CONTINUED)

A SEARCH BECAUSE THEY USED A "DEVICE ••• NOT IN GENERAL USEn (A TRIANED DRUG-DETECTION DOG) TO 0 EXPLORE DETAILS OF THE HOME (APARTMENT, DUPLEX, ETC.)n THAT THEY· 0 \'«XJJ.D NOT OTHERWISE DISCOVERED WITHOUT ENTERING THE PREMISES. n Thus, obtaining by SENSE - ENHANCING

TECHNOLOGY ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE HCl'mS INTERIOR THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BEEN OBTAINED WITHOUT "INTRUSION INTO A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROI'ECTED AREA/ 0 SILVERMAN v UNITED STATES, 365 US 505, 512, CONSTITUTES A SEARCH - at least where (as here) the technology in question is NOT IN PUBLIC USE. This assures preservation of that degree of PRIVACY AGAINST OOVERNMENT THAT EXISTED WHEN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS AOOPI'ED. KYLLO, supra, Id. at 33 - 35. On the basis of this criterion, the information obtained by the "TRAINED DRUG - DETECTION DOGS" in these cases (ROMO, RODRIGUEZ, AND RIVAS I & II) was the product of a search~ KYLLO, supra, Id.~

RELATOR FILED PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW (RIVAS II, PD-0490-13 & PD_;049l-13, VACATED and REMANDED, COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS, DELIVERED OCTOBER 23, 2013)(PUBLISH), arguing that the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS erred under, BOTH, KYLLO, and JARDINES, supra, Id., with JARDINES HOLDING:"The Government's use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surrounds is a 'SEARCH' within the meaning of THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. The Judgement of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore affirmed." (SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, cited as: 569 US (2013) at 1, opin. NO. 11-564, FLORIDA, PETITIONER v JOEL IS JARDINES, writ of certiorari .to Supreme Court Florida) • JARDINES was handed down on March 26, 2013, 12 days after the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS issued its opinion in these cases, accordingly the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS GRANTED RELATOR'S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW (RIVAS II, supra, Id.),. VACATED ' '

THE JUDGEMENTS of the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS and REMANDED these cases to the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS in light of JARDINES.

ON REMAND, RELATOR FILED BRIEF, submitted FEBRUARY 15, 2014, detailing arguements of PDR GROUNDS FOR REVIEW; PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH OR ARREST ESTABLISHED BY PRIOR ILLEGAL SEARCH OR ARREST TO BE TAINTED FRUITS THEREOF SUPRESSED WITH EVIDENCE OBTAINED INADMISSABLE AS THE RESULT OR EXPLOITATION OF THAT PRIMARY ILLEGALITY IS AS WELL INADMISSABLE AS "FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE"; ARGUEMENT ONTHE FOUR CORNERSOF THE UNCONS'l'ITUTIONAL SEARCH WARRANT AS ISSUED; SEARCH WARRANT ISSUANCE BY MUNICIPAL COURT MAGISTRATE JURISDICTIONALLY FLAWED; inter - alia. (APPELLANT'S BRIEF ON REMAND, Icl. at pgs. 7 - 18).

ON REJVJAND, STATE'S BRIEF filed MARCH 24, 2013, STATE'S Response to the First Question Before the COURT: "JARDINES should not be applied retroactively to exclude the results of the canine sniff in determining probable cause where police conducted the search in

4 4

5

II

CASE(S) DISCUSSION

(CONTINUED)

objectively reasonable reliance on binding precedents. STATE'S Response to the Second Question Before the Court: "Even if the result of the canine sniff is excluded, the remainder of the affidav.±t was sufficient to establish probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant." (STATE'S BRIEF ON REMAND, Id. at pg. 7, SUMMARY OF STATE'S RESPONSE).

ADDENDUM RESPONSE TO STATE'S BRIEF ON REMAND, RELATOR SUBMITTED on APRIL 04, 2014.

Arguing: KYLLO has been the existing JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS SINCE JUNE ll, 2001, over 13 years at the time of SEARCH WARRANT ISSUANCE by A MUNICIPAL COURT PRO - TEM JUDGE (RIVAS II); and, JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL COURT PRO-TEM JUDGE in DIRECT VIOLATION OF TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE § 4,14 to ISSUE SEARCH WARRANT IN CRIMINAL CASE as the PRIMARY CONSTRAINT IN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE AFFIDAVIT. ADDENDUM, Id. throughout. (DETAILED IN APPELLANT'S BRIEF ON REMAND, Id. at pgs. 7- 18).

SECOND.DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, ON REMAND, .SEPTEMBER 25, 2014, RE-AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGEMENT REASONING AS REVEALED PAGEl herein. Id., NO.(S) 02-12-00062-CR & 02-12-00063-CR; TRIAL COURT NO.(S) l2l597lD & l2l5973D.

III

TEXAS LAW

A. The SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS:

l) MARCH 14, .2013, MEMORANDUM OPINION, NO.(S) 02-12-00062-CR & 02-12-00063-CR, at;

III. MOTION TO SUPPRESS; A. OPEN AIR DOG SNIFF:

•.. "In RIVAS T, we held that the OPEN-AIR DOG SNIFF was SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH PROABLE CAUSE, and we DID NOT REACH RIVAS' COMPLAINTS AOOUT THE INFORMANT'S CREDIBILITY OR CORROBORATION. See id . at * 5 . Here, RIVAS ARGUES THAT THE WARRANTLESS OPEN-AIR DOG SNIFF of his APARTMENT ])(X)R WAS ILLEGAL; however THIS COURT HAS HELD CYI'HERWISE. (Ln. 2) See ROMO v STATE, 315 SW 3d 565, 573 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref'd)(citing RODRIGUEZ v STATE, 106 SW 3d 224, 228-29 (Tex. App•-Houston [lst Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 540 US ~189(2004), for the proposition that~ DRUG DETECTION DOG'S SNIFF

OF THE FRONT ·DOOR OF A DEFENDANT'S HOME IS LEGAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE AREA AROUND AN UNENCLOSED FRONT DOOR) . Thus, WE HOLD that THE OPEN-AIR DOG SNIFF OF THE FRONT DOOR TO RIVAS' . APARTMENT WAS LEGAL and, CONSISTENT WITH OUR HOLDING IN RIVAS I, 'WAS ·SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLI_SH PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT.'See 2012 WL 5512450, at *5. We overrule Rivas' first point." Id. at *3, 4, MEMORANDUM, supra.

6

III

TEXAS LAW (CONTINUED)

2) SEPTEMBER 25, 2014, OPINION ON REMAND, PER CURIAM, NO.(S) 02-12-00062-CR & 02-12-

00063-CR, ·at;

I. INTRODUCTION:

... "SEPTEMBER 27, 2010, Rivas WAS DETAINED for new atug offeflses- ... -:-AFTER POLICE OBTAINED A SEARCH WARRANT BASED ON A TIP FROM ANDREW MUNCHRATH, ••• WE AFFIRMED AFTER DETERMINING that the MAGISTRATE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR CONCLUDING that the SEARCH WARRANT WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE 'BASED ON' A DRUG-SNIFFING POLICE DOG'S ALERT TO RIVAS FRONT IXJOR 'ON THE SAME DAY THAT THE WARRANT WAS OBTAINED AND EXECUTED. ' . Id • . at *1, 5." Ia. at *2, OPINION ON REMAND, PER CURIAM, supra.

B. The S~ATE'S BRIEF ON REMAND:

1) MARCH 24, 2014, NO.(S) 02-12-00062-CR & 02-12-00063-CR, at;

I. Eviaence obtainea from a search shoula not be suppressea IF POLICE OFFICERS COULD Nar HAVE HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SEARCH WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.

"In JARDINES, the SUPREME COURT rulea that a canine sniff of the curtilage of a private residence constitutes a search unaer THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. Floriaa v Jaraines, . "~ ~Prior to the Court's opinion in JARDINES, POLICE OFFICERS IN THE INSTANT CASE CONDUCTED AN "OPEN AIR SNIFF" AT THE FRONT IXJOR OF APPELLANT'S APARTMENT, USING A NNDDA CERTIFIED CANINE.(f.n. 3, The recora in the instant case is not sufficient to determine whether the area outsiae Appellant's aoor was part of the curti:).age.)[RR IV: State's Exhibit One, at *6]. The CANINE ALERTED TO THE PRESENCE OF NARCffiiC ODORS FROM THE RESIDENCE, 'AND THAT INFORMATION WAS INCLUDED' IN THE AFFIDAVIT OFFICERS 'USED TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT FOR APPELLANT'S APARTMENT. [RR IV: State's Exhibit One, at *6].

"Eviaence of the. result of the canine sniff shoula not be excluaea from consiaeration 1n aetermining whether probable cause existea for the issuance of .a search warrant because the officers coula not of anticipatea that their actions were in violation of the FOURTH . AMENDMENT, AND OFFICERS HAD A RIGHT TO RELY ON PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED BY THIS COURT. (SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, FORT WORTH, TEXAS)."

C. The COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AUSTIN, TEXAS:

1) OCTOBER 23, 2013, OPINION, PER CURIAM, NO.(S) PD-0490-13 & PD-0491-13, at; OPINION: "APPELLANT WAS: CHARGED ••• Al:JOG SNIFF AT HIS FRONT IXJOR LED TO THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM.

--------- ---------------- --- --

HE FILED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS, WHICH THE TRIAL COURT DENIED ••• THE COURT OF APPEALS DID Nar HAVE THE BENEFIT OF JARDINES. ACCORDINGLY, WE GRANT APPELLANT'S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIE.W, VACATE THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND REMAND THESE

CASES TO THE COURT OF APPEALS IN LIGHT OF JARDINES." Ia. at OPINION, sUpra.

III

TEXAS LAW (CONTINUED)

2) In STATE v DAUGHERTY, 931 SW 2d 268, 283 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), _acknowledged:

"WE ALSO NOI'E THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD EVIDENCE FOUND PURSUANT TO AN EXECUTION OF A VALID SEARCH WARRANT IS ADMISSABLE 'PROVIDED THE INFORMATION USED TO -OBTAIN .THE

WARRANT IS WHOLLY UNCONNECTED' TO INFORMATION UNCOVERED 'DURING AN EARLIER, INVALID SEARCH.'" Id. at pg. 5, APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR-RECONSIDERATION OF OPINION ON REMAND EN BANC, Titneiy submitted September 26, 2014; cited in DAUGHERTY, supra, Id. at n. *4, . citing, SEGURA v US, 468 US 796, 104 S Ct 3380, 82 LEd 2d 599 (1984); MURRY v US, 487 US 533, 108 S Ct 2529, 101 LEd 2d 472 {1988)(citing NIX v WILLIAMS, 467 US 431, 104 S Ct 2501, 81 LEd 2d 377 (1984).

D. TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURES, at ARTICLE:

1) § 4.14, JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL COURT, states: . a) A municipal court, including a municipal court of records, shall have exclusive original jurisdiction within the territorial limits of the municipality IN.ALL CRIMINAL CASES THAT:

1) arise under the ordinances of the municipality; AND 2) are punishable by a fine not to exceed: A) $2,000·in all cases arising under the municipality ordinances that govern fire safety, zoning, or public health and sanitation, including dumping of refuse; OR B) $500 in all other cases arising under a municipal ordinance.

b) The municipal court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the justice court of a precinct in which the municipality is located IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES ARISING UNDER STATE LAW THAT:

1) arise within the territorial limits of the minicipallty AND are punishable ONLY by a fine, as defined in Subsection (c) of this section; OR 2) arise under Chapter 106, Alcoholic Beverage Code, and DO NOT INCLUDE CONFINEMENT AS AN AUTHORIZED SANCTION.

c) In this article, an offense which is punishable by "fine only" is defined as an offense THAT IS PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND SUCH SANCTIONS, IF ANY, AS AUTHORIZED BY STA'l'U'rE NCYl' CONSISTING OF CONFINEMENT IN JAIL OR IMPRISONMENT.

d) The fact that a conviction in a municipal court has as a consequence the imposition of a penalty or sanction by an agency or entity other than the court, such a denial, suspension, or revocation of a privilege, does not effect the original jurisdiction of the municipal court.

e) The municipal court has jurisdiction in the forfeiture and final judgement of all bail borids and personal bonds taken in criminal cases of which the court has jurisdiction. Id. at pg. 6, ADDENDUM RESPONSE TO STATE'S BRIEF ON REMAND, 02-12-00062-CR/02-12-00063-CR.

8

IV

FEDERAL PRECEDENTS

(LAW)

The STATE ADJUDICATION was contrary to clearly established FEDERAL.LAW as determined by the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established FEDERAL LAW as determined by said SUPREME COURT. HARRINGTON v RICHTER I us I 131 s Ct 770 I 785 I 178 L Ed 2d 624 ( 2011) ; WILLIAMS v TAYLOR I 529 US 362, 404-05, 120 S Ct 1495, 146 LEd 2d 389 (2000); 28 USC§§ 2254 (d)(l), (2). A STATE COURT decision is contrary to FEDERAL PRECEDENTS if it applies a rule that CONTRADICTS the GOVERNING LAW SET.FORTH BY THE SUPREME COURT, or if it CONFRONTS A SET OF FACTS that are MATERIALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM SUCH A DECISION·AND ARRIVES AT A RESULT DIFFERENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT~ EARLY v PACKER, 537 US 3, 7-8, 123 S Ct 362, 154 LEd 2d 263 (2002).

A STATE COURT unreasonably applies SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT if it UNREASONABLY APPLIES THE CORRECT LEGAL RULE to the facts of a particular case, or UNREASONABLY EXTENDS A LEGAL PRINCIPLE FROM SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT TO ANEW CONTEXT WHERE IT SHOULD NOT APPLY, OR ONREASClilABLY REFUSES TO EXTEND .THAT PRINCIPLE .TO A. NEW CONTEXT WHERE IT SHOULD APPLY.

WILLIAMS, 529 US at 409: In deciding whether a STATE COURT'S application WAS UNREASONABLE, the SUPREME COUR"r::CONSIDERS whether the APPLICATION WAS OBJECTIVELY UNREASONABLE. Id. at 411. '· A decision adjudicated on the merits in a STATE COURT and BASED ON FACTUAL DETERMINATION will not be overturned on factual grounds UNLESS it is objectively unreasonable ih light of evidence presented in the STATE COURT PROCEEDING. MILLER-EL v COCKRELL, 537 US 322, 343'l 123 S Ct 1029, 154 LEd 2d 931 (2003). A COURT must presume the underlying factual determination of the STATE COURT was correct, UNLESS THIS RELATOR REBUTS THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. 28 USC § 2254 (e)(l); See also MILLER-EL, 537 US at 330-31.

The RELATOR MUST afford the STATE COURT a "fair opportunity to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon his CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM." ANDERSON v. HARLESS, 459 US 4, 6 (1982) Id. at 6.

RELATOR MUST present the claim:in issue with specifity sufficient to ALLOW the STATE COURT an OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY CONTROLLING LAW TO THE FACTS OF THE CLAIM.

"[E]vidence that places the claims· in a significantly different legal posture must be presented to the STATE COURT'S." MORRIS v DRETKE, 379 F '3d 199, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2004)(emphasis & bracketed text in original; internal & end citations omitted).

RELATOR has made "a substantial showing of the denial of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, THAT REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD FIND THE ... COURT'S ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS DEBATABLE OR WRONG." TENNARD v DRETKE, 542 US 274, '282, 124 S Ct 2562, 159 L Ed

IV

FEDERAL PRECEDENTS (LAW, CONTINUED)

2d 384 (2004)(quoting SLACK v MCDANIEL, 529 US 473,484, 120 S Ct 1595, 146 LEd 2d 542 (2000). RELATOR (THROUGHOUT .THE ENTIRE APPEAL PROCESS AND AGAIN HEREIN) has.shown "that a REAS@NABI1EJURIST COULD DEBATE WHETHER (or, for that matter, AGREE THAT) .the petition [SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ORDER] SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED IN A DIFFERENT MANNER OR THAT THE ISSUES, PRESENTED WERE· 'ADEQUATE TO DESERVE ENCOURAGEMENT.TO PROCEED FURTHER.'" MILLER-EL, supra, 537 US at 336.

v

EXCLUSIONARY RULE

A. FEDERAL CASE LAW The exclusionary rule "is a judicially created remedy to safegaurd FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS generally through DETERRENT EFFECT, rather than a personal CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of a party aggrieved." UNITED STATES v CALANDRA, 414 US 338,. 348, 94 S Ct 613, 38 LEd 2d 561 ( 1974) . The exclusionary rule's SOLE PURPOSE IS TO DETER FUTURE FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS. Id., citing UNITED STATES v LEON, 468 USB97., 909 ~. 921 n. 2, 104 S Ct 3405, 82 LEd 2d 677 (1984).Furthermore, applicability of the exclusionary rule,is limited to· situations in which DETERRENCE IS "THOUGHT MOST EFFICACIOUSLY SERVED." See DAVIS.v United STATES~ · · · us. , 131 s Ct 2419, 2426, 180: L Ed 2d 285 ( 2011) , citing CALANDRA ,414 us at2434.

The SUPREME COURT has long recognized that APPLICATION OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE involves consideration of the actions of the officers involved in order to determine whether the REQUISITE DETERRENT EFFECT WILL BE ACHIEVED. See DAVIS, 131 S Ct at 2434; ILLINIOS v KRULL, 480 US 340, 350, 107 S Ct 1160, 94 LEd 2d 364 (1987); UNITED STATES v PELTIER, 422 US 531, 537, 95 S Ct 2313, 2318, 45 LEd 2d 374 (1975).

The SUPREME COURT in DAVIS held that ·the GANT RULE applied retroactively, but that evidence obtained during the search conducted IN REASONABLE RELIANCE ON THEN - BINDING PRECEDENT was not subject to the exclusionary rule. DAVIS, 131 S Ct at 2429, 2434; see also, ARIZONA v GANT, 552 US 332, 352, 129 S Ct 1710, 170 LEd 2d 274 (2008).

The SUPREME COURT declared that "[w]hen the POLICE EXHIBIT "DELIBERATE," "RECKLESS,"

OR "GROSSLY NEGLIGENT" DisREGARD FOR.· FOURTH AMENDMENT ·RIGHTS, THE DETERRENT VALUE OF EXCLUSION IS STRONG AND TENDS TO OUTWEIGH THE RESULTING COSTS." DAVIS, supra, at 2427 Id ..

Similarly, in KRULL, 480 US at 342-43. One day after the search was conducted, a federal court declared the statute unconstisutionaL ID. at 340. Declaring that THE PURPOSE OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IS TO DETER FUTURE UNLAWFUL POLICE CONDUCT, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HELD that the FOURTH AMENDMENT'S EXCLUSIONARY RULE DID NOT.APPLY

9 q

v

EXCLUSIONARY RULE

(CONTINUED)

WHEN AN OFFICER'S RELIANCE ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE IS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE, EVEN THOUGH the statute is subsequently declared unconstitutional. Id. at 347, 350.

In PELTIER, THE SUPREME COURT determined ... "If the PURPOSE OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IS TO DETER UNLAWFUL POLICE CONDUCT, THEN EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM A SEARCH SHOULD

BE SITePRESSED ONLY IF IT CAN BE SAID THAT. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAD KNOWLEDGE, OR MAY PROPERLY BE CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE, THAT THE SEARCH WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDEMENT." :PELTIER, supra:, 422>US at 542, Id .. (CITINGS FROM STATE'S BRIEF ON REMAND, NO.(S) 02-12-00062-CR & 02-12-00063~CR, at pgs. 8 - 12).

B. TEXAS CASE LAW Similar to the FOURTH AMENDMENT, ARTICLE L SECTION 9 of the TEXAS CONSTITUTION PROVIDES, in relevant part, that "The people SHALL BE SECURE IN THEIR persons, HOUSES,. papers in possession, FROM ALL UNREASONABLE SEARCHES OR SEIZURES ...... TEXAS CONSTITUTION ART. I, § 9. Unlike the -FOURTH AMENDMENT, ART. I, _i ~contains NO EXCLUSIONARY RULE, and thus, TEXAS ADOPTED A STATUTORY EXCLUSIONARY RULE. See; HULIT v STATE, 982 SW 2d 431, 439 (Tex Crim App 1998), citing WELCHEK v STATE, 247 SW 2d 524, 529 (Tex Crim App 1922). ARTICLE.38.:C3 of the TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EXCLUDES EVIDENCE "OBTAINED BY AN OFFICER OR OTHER PERSON IN VIOLATION OF 'ANY . PROVISIONS' OF THE aJNSTITUION OR )(

LAWS OF THE STATE. OF TEXAS, OR OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." TEX CODE CRIM PROC ART 38.23.

The TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS has held that the EXCLUSIONARY RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE FROM A WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE 'THAT WAS PERMISSABLE' AT THE_ 'TIME OF THE SEIZURE. 'See SWINK v STATE, 617 SW 2d 203, 209-10 (Tex Crim App 1981). Concluding that the warrantless search a~d seizure of the premises by the officers· in SWINK ~WAS PERMISSABLE AT THE TIME OF THEIR ACTIONS, n the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS found no error by the trial court in admitting the complained - of evidence. SWINK, 617 SW 2d at 210, Id ..

More recently, two Texas Courts of Appeals have had occasion to consider whether the EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE was required in circumstances-WHERE OFFICERS BELIEVED THEY WERE ACTING LAWFULLY AT THE TIME THEY CONDUCTED A SEARCH, but SUBSEQUENT COURT DECISIONS FOUND SEARCHES TO.. BE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. In TAYLOR v STATE, 410 SW 3d 520 (Tex App- Amarillo 2013, no pet.) the Court Ruled that EVIDENCE IN THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE BASED ON THE STATE OF THE LAW AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME the mobile tracking device was installed, BECAUSE THE OFFICERS ACTED IN REASONABLE RELIANCE ON 'FEDERAL .PRECEDENT' IN THE MAJORITY OF THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS

10 IV

v

EXCLUSIONARY RULE

(CONTINUED)

OF APPEAL, INCLUDING THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. TAYLOR, at 526-527, Id.

In ELIAS v STATE, 2012 WL 4392245 at *7 (Tex App - El Paso September 26, 2012, pet n:?f 'd) (not designated for publication) , the El Paso Court held that, although the SEARCH OF ELIAS 1 . VEHICLE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER GANT, THE OFFICERS ACTED IN 1 1 OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE RELIANCE UPON EXISTING LAW, AND THUS, THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE WAS NOT_APPLICABLE. ELIAS, supra, 2012 WL 4392245 at *7. (CITINGS FROM STATE'S BRIEF ON REMAND, NO.(S) 02-12-00062-CR & .02-12~00063-CR, at pgs. 12 .- 16, Id.)

VI

ABUSE OF DISCRETION

CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL / IGNORE MATERIAL FACTS, U.S. SUPREME COURT BINDING PRECEDENT

The SECOND DISTRICTCOURT OF APPEALS, has too, ABUSED IT DISCRETION and in doing so has entered into A CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL, IGNORE, MATERIAL FACTS, AND UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BINDING PRECEDENT,·THEREBY,. AFFIRMING. AN UNLAWFUL CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT OF THIS RELATOR.

RELATOR'S ASSERTIONS ANDEXPLANATIONS FOR AFOREMENTIONED AS FOLLOWS:

A. SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, LIVINGSTON,C.J., MCCOY, J., & GABRIEL, J.;

REGIONAL PRESIDING JUDGE, HONORABLE DAVID L. EVANS; JUDGE, CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. -4, HONORABLE MICHAEL THOMAS; ASSISTANT CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CHARLES M. MALLIN; & ATTORNEY OF RECORD, JIM H. SHAW: ALL ARE UNDER OATH to uphold the LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND THE UNITED STATES. In failing to do so is AN ABUSE·OF THEIR DISCRETION, NOT TO MENTION . . .

A VIOLATION OF THEIR OATH, ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL HAVE EITHER, CONCEALED OR IGNORED, MATERIAL FACTS OR BINDINGPRECEDENT OVER A CASE, SUCWAS'THE ONE BEFORE.THIS COURT PRESENTLY, AND CAN BE CONSIDERED A CONSPIRACY TO DO SQ, UNDER FEDERAL LAW.

B. The ABUSE OF DISCRETION to enter into A CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND IGNORE THE MATERIAL FACTS THAT THE MAGISTRATE'S ISSUANCE OF THE SEARCH WARRANT BEYOND JURISDICTION IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE §.4.14 1 TEXAS LAW,(cited herein at, III TEXAS LAW, D. TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURES, pg. 7), by ALL ABOVE, as was either briefed or made aware through this entire JUDICIAL PROCESS RELATOR HAS been subjected to, especially, briefed ON REMAND (See, appellant's Brief at, III.· Arguments, pg. 14 -. 15)', specifying: 1) A MuniCipal Court Pro~Terri J.udge has a relatively straight forward task to issue

11

Ij

VI

ABUSE OF DISCRETION

CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL / IGNORE MATERIAL FACTS U.S. SUPREME COURT BINDING PRECEDENT

ARREST WARRANTS FOR BREACH OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES, and the SEARCH WARRANT ISSUANCE IN this case was beyond the JURISDICTION OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT PRO-TEM JUDGE, violating Tex.· Code Crim. Proc. Art. § A .14, thereby commi ting a LEGAL / ,TECHNICAL DEFECT RENDERING THE SEARCH WARRANT OF ''cNO FORCE OR EFFECT, LEGALLY. n

JUSTICE STEVENS (cited in ILLINIOS v GATES, 462 US 213, 76 LEd 2d 527, 103 S CT 2317, reh. den. (US) 77 LEd 2d 1453, 104 S Ct 33, ~t 26i, II., B;, Id.) put in writing for the Court in US v ROSS, 465 US 798, 823 '· n. 32, 72 L Ed 2d 572, 102 S Ct 2157: "[A] warrant issued by a magistrate NORMALLY SUFFICES to establish" that a law ·: ·.: ~ · enforcement officer has "ACTED.~IN (X)()D FAITH IN CONDUCTING THE SEARCH." Neberless, the WARRANT MAY BE INVALIDATED BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL DEFECT • •• TO ISSUE SEARCH WARRANTS,

AN INDIVIDUAL MUST BE CAPABLE OF MAKING THE PROBABLE CAUSE JUDGEMENTS INVOLVED ••• . -

IN ANY EVENT, · I (JUSTICE STEVENS) ~ APPLY THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE WHEN IT I'S!_,,.,-'

PLAINLY EVIDENT THAT Ai ;MAGISTRATE OR JUDGE 0 HAD .NO BUSINESS ISSUING A WARRANT. n See, AGUILAR v TEXAS, 378 US 108, 12 L Ed 2d 723, 84 S Ct 1509 (1964).; NATHANSON v US, 290 US 41, 78 LEd 159, 54 S Ct 11 (1933). Similarly, the good faith exception WOULD NOT APPLY IF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED TO THE MAGISTRATE OR JUDGE "IS FALSE OR MISLEADING,"

FRANKS v DELAWARE, 438 US 154, 57 LEd 2d 667, 98 S Ct 2674 (1978), OR SO CLAERLY

LACKING IN PROBABLE CAUSE THAT NO WELL - TRAINED OFFICER COULD REASONABLY HAVE THOUGHT THAT A WARRANT COULD ISSUE. GATES, supra at 263-264 Id .. Consider the ARGUMENTS PRESENTED TO THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS IN RELATOR'S BRIEF ON REMAND INCLUDING ADDENDUM TO STATE'S BRIEF ON REMAND.

This was a clear ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO CONCEAL AND IGNORE THIS MATERIAL FACT THAT THE PRO-TEM MUNICIPAL. COURT JUDGE WENT BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF SAID COURT ISSUING A SEARCH WARRANT IN A CRIMINAL OFFENSE THAT CONSIST OF ·CONFINEMENT IN .JAIL AND/OR IMPRISONMENT, VIOLATING (TECHNICALLY) TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. § 4.14, specifying MUNICIPAL COURT JURISDICTION.

The MATERIAL PRESENTED to the MAGISTRATE was at the very least MISLEADING with the inclusion of the DOG - SNIFF for corroboration of the informants tip. Furthermore, the MAGISTRATE 0 HAD NO. BUSINESS ISSUING A WARRANT," as it was beyond the MAGISTRATE'S JURISDICTION AND PLAINLY EVIDENT FROM TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. § 4.14.

C. The ABUSE OF DISCRETION to enter into A CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND IGNORE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S BINDING PRECEDENT in cases as follow: KYLLO v US, 533 US 27, 150 LEd 2d 94, 121 S Ct 2038 was arguedFEBRUARY 20, 2001 and DECIDE JUNE 11, 2001. FURTHERMORE, it was cited and discussed in FLORIDA v JARDINES 569 us , 133 S Ct 1409, 185 L Ed 2d 495, 81 USLW 4209, NO. 11-564, writ of certiorari,

12 !2

VI

ABUSE OF DISCRETION

CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL / IGNORE MATERIAL FACTS U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT

ARGUED OCTOBER 31, 2012,- DECIDED MARCH 26, 2013.

The STATE ADJUDICATION AS AFFIRMED BY THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS lS

contrary.to clearly established FEDERAL LAW as determined by the SUPREME COURT OF THE· UNITED STATES, and has involved. an unreasonable application of.clearly established FEDERAL LAW as determined by said SUPREME COURT. This decision by the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS is contrary to FEDERAL PRECEDENT. as it has applied a rule that . contradicts the GOVERNING LAW SET FORTH BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT in the KYLLO case, supra, Id., and discussed as a determining case of the more recent JARDINES case1 supra, Id. ,thereby, arriving at a result different from the SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT. (citings, herein at IV., FEDERAL PRECEDENT [LAW] at pgs. 8- 9).

Specifically, as cited in JARDINES, supra, decided UNDER PROPERTY RIGHTS, the KYLLO CASE,,supra, decided UNDER PRIVACYRIGHTS, governs the case of RIVAS v STATE, NO.(S) 02-12-00062-CR & 02-12-00063-CRI SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS JUDGEMENT ON REMAND RE-AFFIRMED (RIVAS II)I HOWEVER, has chose to CONCEAL AND IGNORE these MATERIAL FACTS ESTABLISHED THROUGH UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, thereby considered AN' ABUSE OF DISCRETION, and UNDER FEDERAL LAW, A CONSPIRACY TO DO SO, AS RIVAS II RE - AFFIRMED.

IN KYLLO, supra, the SUPREME COURT DECIDED ON JUNE 11, 2001, as KYLLO lived in a TRIPEEX,JJNTT (MULTI FAMILY UNITS), HIS HOME, the COURT HELD that POLICE OFFICERS CONDUCTED A SEARCH WHEN THEY USED A THERMAL-IMAGING DEVICE TO DETECT HEAT EMENATING FROM A PRIVATE HOME, even though they COMMITTED NO TREsPASS. HIGHLITING THE SUPREME COURT'S INTENTION TO DRAW BOTH A "FIRM" AND A 0 BRlGHT 0 LINE AT nTHE ENTRANCE TO THE

HOUSEt° KYLLO, supra, Id. at 40. The SUP~EME COURT ANNOUNCED THE FOLLOWING RULE:

"Where, 'as here, theGovernment uses a devise that is NOT IN GENERAL .

PUBLIC USE,

.

TO

EXPLORE DETAILS OF .THE HOME THAT WJLD PREVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN ~LE WITHOUT PHYSICAL

1

INTRUSION, THE SURVEILLANCE IS A SEARCH' ·AND IS PRESUMPriVELY UNREASONABLE WITHOOT WARRANT. n Ibid.

The STATE has argued, and the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS has RULED IN ROMO,!

STATE, 315 SW 3d 565,·.573-574 (Tex App- Fort W•:Jrth 2010, pet. ref'd) and concluded that canine sniffs of a garage door and backyard fence WERE NOT SEARCHES UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OR THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION because the dog sniffed areas that were NOT PROTECTED FROM OBSERVATION by passerby AND BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE OOOR OF MARIJUANA COMING FROM HIS BACKYARD.

In its original opinion in the instant case, the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS cited ROMO for the PROPOSITION THAT ~ DRUG DETECTION DOG 1 S SNIFF OF THE FRONT IJCX)R OF A DEFENDANT 1 S HOME IS NOT. A SEARCH BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY

13 /3

VI

ABUSE OF DISCRETION

CONSPIRACY-TO CONCEAL I IGNORE MATERIAL FACTS U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT

IN THE AREA AROUND AN UNENCLOSED FRONT DOOR. ·See RIVAS v STATE (RIVAS II), 2013 WL 978911 at *1; Also, STATES BRIEF ON REMAND at pg. 20 Id ..

The STATE BRIEFS the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS with a substantial body of case law that a canine sniff is not a search, however, this is an UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF THE CORRECT LEGAL RULE TO THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE. The case law used pertains 1:.o incidents that have little to NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, ESPECIALLY WITH AUTOMOBILES, PUBLIC TRANSIT, UNDER STATUTES THAT ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AT TIME OF WARRANTLESS SEARCH, ETC .. (See ORIGINAL STATE BRIEF; STATE BRIEF ON PDR; STATE BRIEF ON REMAND; and, SECOND DISTRICT COUR~ OF APPEALS OPINIONS ALL)(Compare, RELATOR'S ORIGINAL APPEAL; PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW; ADDENDUMS; and BRIEF ON. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW I REMAND) Id. The STATE and THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS absolutely UNREASONABLY REFUSE TO EXTEND THE KYLW I KATZ / SEGURA I .~G SUN PRINCIPLE TO THIS NEW. CONTEXT OF RIVAS II

WHERE IT SHOULD .APPLY ·AS DISCUSSED BY- JARDINES JUSTICES IN CONCURRING OPINION, ESPECIALLY, JUSTICE(S) KAGAN, GINSBURG AND SOTOMAYOR, 'SPECIFYING, "KYLW, WITHOUT TRESPASS, HAD

ALREADY RESOLVED JARDINES ON PRIVACY GROUNDS. WHERE AS HERE (RIVAS II) THE OOVERNMENT USES A DEVISE THAT IS NCYl' IN· GENERAL PUBLIC USE, TO EXPWRE DETAILS. OF THE HOME THAT WOULD PREVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN lJNK~ABLE WITHOUT PHYSICAL INTRUSION, THE SURVEILLANCE IS A 'SEARCH' AND IS PRESUMPTIVELY UNREASONABLE WITHOUT A WARRANT.a Id. at pg. 13 herein, KYLLO.

The ~EXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (RIVAS II, NO.(S) PD-0490-13 & PD-0491-13, Per

.. curiam, Opinion) in pertenent part specified: "APPELLANT WAS CHARGED WITH TWO COUNTS OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH THE INTENT To DELIVER. A DOG SNIFF AT HIS FRONT DOOR LED TO THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM •• " Id. Thus, THE DOG SNIFF AT RELATOR'S

(RIVAS' ) FRONT DOOR "PROVIDED THE INFORMATION USED TO OBTAIN THE SEARCH W~ AND IS

WHOLLY <X>NNECTED TO THE INFORMATION UNCOVERED DURING THE EARLIER, INVALID SEARCH," OR ILLEGAL SEARCH PRIOR TOWARRANT ISSUANCE.;·see STATE v DAUGHERTY, 931 SW 2d 268, 283 n.M, (Tex; Crim. App. 1996)(acknowledging: "We also note THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD EVIDENCE FOUND pursuant to an execution of a valid search warrant is admissable 'PROVIDED THE INFORMATION. USED .TO OBTAIN THE WARRANT IS WHOLLY UNCONNECTED' TO INFORMATION UNCOVERED

'DURING AN EARLIER, INVALID SEARCH.'" See, SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT CITINGS, herein at II I. , TEXAS LAW, pg. 7, n. * 2, STATE v DAUGHERTY, Id. ) . A CLEAR AND ABSOLUTE VIOLATION

OF THE FOURTH- AMENDMENT RB;)UIRING EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE UNDER, BOTH, THE EUURTH AMENDMENT AND THE TEXAS ADOPTED STATUTORY EXCLUSIONARY ·RULE, TEX CODE CRIM PROC ART 38.23. See,. herein· ati V. EXCLUSIONARY RULE, B. TEXAS CASE LAW, pg 10 - 11, Id ..

14

;1

•.

..

VII

CONCLUSION

The COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS properly applied the correct rule of law in this case through the ORIGINAL PER CURIAM OPINION that VACATED AND REMANDED this case to the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, specifically stating, " ••. A dog sniff at his (RELATOR'S) front door led to the charges against him ... " Id. at Per Curiam Opinion Order, NO.(S) PD-0490-13 & PD-0491~13.

RELATOR.again,. (herein) BRIEFS THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS through the background, case· discussion,' . Texas Law., Federal Precedent, Exclusionary Rule, Abuse of Discretion, Conspiracy to Conceal I Ignore Material Facts of the United States Supreme Court Binding Precedent which apply in this Case of RIVAS I & II .

.RELATOR'S CASE comes under the jurisdiction of the KYLLO SUPREME COURT as has been conceded by this RELATOR through this entire appeal process. KYLLO was argued/ FEBRUARY 20, 200L and decided, JUNE 11, 200L the fact that the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS chooses to ignore the fact that under KYLLO, "A DRUG - DETECTION DoG'S SNIFF OF THE FRONT DOOR OF A DEFENDANT'S HOME IS [ IL] LEGAL BECAUSE THERE IS [A] REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY .... " (See, .ROMO v STATE, 315 SW 3d 565, 573; RODRIGUEZ v STATE, 106 SW 3d 224, 228-29), ~~~~.EVEN THOUGH THEY COMMITTED NO TRESPASS. HIGHLIGHTING, OR INTENTION TO, DRAW BOTH A 'FIRM AND A BRIGHT LINE AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE HOUSE.'"·KYLLO, supra Id~at 40. The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ANNOUNCED THE FOLLOUNG RULE:. WHERE, (AS HERE, ROMO, RODRIGUEZ, AND RIVAS I & II) THE GOVERNMENT USES A DEVICE THAT IS NOT IN GENERAL PUBLIC USE, TO EXPLORE DETAILS OF THE HOME (WHETHER, TRJ:PLEX, DUPLEX, APARTMENT, ETC.) THAT WOULD PREVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN UNKNOWABLE WITHOUT PHYSICAL INTRUSION, THE SURVEILLANCE 'IS A SEARCH'_ AND PRESUMPTIVELY UNREASONAB~E WITHOUT. A WARRANT. n Ibid. (See also, II. Case Discussion, pgs. 2 - 5, herein Id.} Confirmed in JARDINES, !uy CONCURRING JUSTICES. Id.

· It is clear in RIVAS that the officers where in violation of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL FOURTH AMENDMENT AND TEXAS CONSTITUTION .ART.. I , § 9 with the adopted STATUTORY EXCLUSIONARY RULEi TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ART. 38.23, and EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE WAS TO BE APPLIED EVEN IF, NOT THAT RELATOR CONCEDES, THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS WAS LAWFULLY CAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHETHER PROBABLE CAUSE EXXSTED IN THE REMAINDER OF THE SEARCH AFTER OMITTION OF THE DOG -SNIFF, THE COURT OF CRIMINAL. APPEALS WAS ACKNOWLEDGED, IN DAUGHERTY, "Provided the information used to obtain the warrant IS WHOLLY UNCONNECTED to INFORMATION UNCOVERED DURING EARLIER, INVALID SEARCH. n See herein at pg. 7, n. 2, Id. The officers obtained a SEARCH WARRANT .AFTER, NOT UNTIL, THE DOG - SNIFF, AND "BASED ON A DRUG-SNIFFING DOG'S ALERT TO RIVAS' FRONT DOOR ON THE SAME DAY THAT THE WARRANT WAS OBTAINED AND EXCUTED," the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED RIVAS, DETERMING MAGISTRATE HAD SUBSTANTIAL BASIS, AS SAID, FOR PROBABLE CAUSE. See, Second District Court of Appeals, Per Curiam Opinion, September 25, 2014, pg. 2 Id .

.· The EXCLUSIONARY DETERRENT is applicable and~ past due in this JUDICIAL SYSTEM. Id.

15 J5

RELATOR PRAYS, after due consideration of the facts throughout this entire appeal process and documentation submitted throughout said process, the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS will once again make the RIGHT - RULING to: not only overturn the conv~ction

due to the FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION, but to order the exoneration due to unlawful searchand seizure, thereby no evidence for conviction or revocation of defered adjudication; order defered adjudication granted for time served on present case; order of actual innocence due to FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION, thereby no evidence to convict; JUDICIALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE KYLLO CASE for ariy DRUG ,. . SNIFFING DOG CASES OF HOMES! AND HAS NOT HAD A SEARCH WARRANT ISSUANCE TO UTILIZE SAID DOG IN THE SEARCH AS UNLAWFUL SEARCHES, THEREBY OVERTURNING SAID CASES FOR ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE WITHOUT WARRANT ~n violation of UNITED STATES FOURTH AMENDMENT AND TEXAS ARTICLE I, § 9, of said CONSTITUTIONS; and utilize TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ART. 38.23 for said violation of UNITED STATES AND TEXAS CONSTITUTIONS.

RELATOR FURTHER PRAYS, THE COURT.OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, to consider the DETERENT EFFECT OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE AND THEREBY APPLY KYLLO TO DRUG - SNIFFING DOG SEARCH AND ~EIZURES WITHOUT PRIOR ~EARCH WARRANT AS UNREASONABLE TO DETER ALL PRIOR AND AtL . FUTURE FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

To DENY WITHOUT WRITTEN ORDER in .this case is to ente.r into the CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAI1 •' ' . . ..

AND IGNORE STATE AND. FEDERAL PRECEDENT.: as present~d in the attached AFFIDAVIT brought before the TEXAS STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE for consideration as presented.

IN FINALITY, the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS should further consider that the warrant as issued in this case, beyond the jurisdiction of the MUNICIPLE COURT PRO-TEM JUDGE, was in violation of TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ART. § 4.14, unlawfully issued,. executed arid of no force or effect as was briefed APPEALS to no avail, THEREBY ABUSING DISCRETION ING THIS CASE.

\..·

~~

POWLEDGE UNIT 1400 FM 3452 PALESTINE, TEXAS 75803 - 2350

16 -

lb

IN THE MATTER OF: DATE: JJA l~ -Jo,. ;;za 1~ CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 TARRANT COUNTY, NO.(S) 1215971D & 1215973D; JUDGEMENT & SENTENCE; OFFICE OF THE TEXAS ATTORNEY SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS NO.(S) 02~12-00062-CR & 02-12-00063-CR GENERAL, AUSTIN, TEXAS JUDGEMENT ON REMAND AFFIRMED; & GERARDO TOMAS RIVAS #01766735 TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.(S) PD-0490-13 & PD-0491-13 v. VACATED & REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION THE STATE OF TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS § § § § §

COUNTY OF ANDERSON § § § § §

AFFIDAVIT COMPLAINING OF:

CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND IGNORE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW PRECEDENT TO UNLAWFULLY CONVICT.AND CONFINE AFFIANT

My name is GERARDO TOMAS RIVAS, TDCJ-ID NO. 01766735, AFFIANT PRO-SE for the matters as listed above and deposed herein, currently confined in the TDCJ-ID POWLEDGE UNIT T/C, Dorm N 1 Bunk 64, located at 1400 FM 3452, ANDERSON COUNTY, PALESTINE, TEXAS 75803-2350.

AFFIANT is:

l) A UNITED STATES citizen born in SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS on 05/03/65, current age 50; 2) Capable to accur.ately perceive, recall, recount, the facts based on personal know ledge as sa-id facts are true and correct; and, 3) Competent to testify to the matters of fact.

AFFIANT files this.AFFIDAVIT COMPLAINING OF: A "CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND IGNORE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW PRECEDENT," particularly, STATE LAW: TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE§ 4.14,-JURISDICTION OF _MUNICIPAL COURT; GASE LAW: STATE v DAUGHERTY, 931 SW 2d 268, 283 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); and, KYLLO v UNITED STATES, · 533 us:- 27, 121 s ct 2038, 150 L Ed 2d 94,. NO. 99-8508, ARGUED FEBRUARY 20, 2001, DECIDED JUNE ll, 2001, UNDER PRIVACY GROUNDS, and CONCURRED as such . by 3 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, specifically, JUSTICE KAGAN, JUSTICE GINSBURG, AND JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR enjoined in FLORIDA v JARDINES, .569 US , 133 S Ct 1409, 185 L Ed 2d 495, 81 USLW 4209, NO. ll-564, writ of certiorari, -DELIVERED MARCH 26, 2013, DECIDED UNDER PROPERTY GROUNDS; ahd, EXCLUSIONARY RULE REFUSAL: For .the POLICE SEARCH AND SEIZURE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, ARTICLE I, § 9 of the TEXAS CONSTITUTION with adopted STATUTORY EXCLUSIONARY RULE, TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE § 38.23, as conceded by THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, PER CURIAM, OPINION, stating, "A DOG SNIFF AT HIS FRONT DOOR LED TO THE CHARGES AGAINST.HIM;" Thereby, "TO UNLAWFULLY CONVICT AND CONFINE AFFIANT," inter-alia, discussed in the BRIEFS, ADDENDUMS, etc. supplied the COURT'S in this entire APPEAL PROCESS. When properly applied calls for EVIDENCE EXCLUSION.

1 11

AFFIANT deposes:

AFFIANT asserts the TARRANT COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO.

4, and THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS (HEREIN, JUDICIAL SYSTEM), as the record indicates, are intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly undermining the STATE AND FEDERAL PRECEDENTED RULE OF LAW, not only to the point of AN ABUSEOF DISCRETION, but too the ENJOINING OF A CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND IGNORE. STATE AND FEDERAL LAW PRECEDENT, CONSTITUTING A'SERIOUS LEGAL COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE TO THE POINT OF AN UNLAWFUL, ILLEGAL, AND VOID SENTENCE AND CONVICTION UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINING THIS AFFIANT.

AFFIANT asserts this intentional, known, and/or reckless ignorance is conceived in a manner that involves SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF AFFIANT'S LIBERTY. This collation of circumstances inferred from the concert actions among the al1eged participants listed above (JUDICIAL SYSTEM) is sufficient circuinstanti~l evidence, under FEDERAL LAW, to prove an existance of the conspiracy to deny this AFFIANT'S LIBERTY (See, 18 USCA § 371; also, US v THON, 917 F 2d 170, Id.).

AFFIANT asserts THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS in the PER CURIAM, OPINION, DELIVERED OCTOBER 23, 2013, granted a RIGHT RULING within the STATE AND FEDERAL LAW PRECEDENT by RIGHTFULLY .

ACKNOWLEDGING: . "; .. A dog sniff at his (AFFIANT'S) front door led to the charges agains-t him ... ,,· andi "The (SECOND DISTRICT) COURT OF APPEALS did not have the BENEFIT OF JARDINES. Accordingly, we grant Appeliant's (AFFIANT'S) petitions .for discretionary review,_VACATE the-judgements of the COURT OF APPEALS, and REMAND these cases to the COURT OF APPEALS 'IN LIGHT OF JARDINES.'n The COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CONCEDED: " .•. Appellant (;AFFIANT) has filed petitions for discretionary review ARGUING that the (SECOND DISTRICT) COURT OF APPEALS ERRED UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S RECENT OPINION 'IN' FLA. v JARDINES, US , 133 S Ct 1409 (2013) ... " The RECENT OPINION niNn FLA. v JARDINES, that this AFFIANT WAS AND HAS ARGUED in this entire APPEAL PROCESS has been a CASE ARGUED FEBRUARY 20, 2001, DECIDED JUNE ll, 2001, was a·coNCURRED OPINION BY 3 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, ~IN JARDINES,n specifically, JUSTICES, KAGAN, GINSBURG, and SOTOMAYOR citing that KYLLO v UNITED STATES, 533 US 27, 121 S Ct 2038, 150 LEd 2d 94, NO. 99-8508, enjoined:

FLORIDA v JARDINES, KAGAN, J, concurring, cited as 569 US (2013) 1 - 4~ and specifically; " ... It is not suprising that in a case involving a s'earch of a home, · >· PROPERTY CoNCEPTS AND PRIVACY CONCEPTS SHOULD SO ALIGN.' The LAW OF PROPERTY "naturally enough enfluence[s]" our "shared social expectations" of what places should be free from governmental excursions. GEORGE v RANDOLPH, 547 US 103, 111 (2006); see RAKAS v ILLINIOS,. 439 US 128, 143, n. 12 (1978). And so the sentiment "my home is.my own," while originating in PROPERTY LAW, NOW ALSO DENOTES A COMMON UNDERSTANDING - EXTENDING EVEN BEYOND THAT LAW'S FORMAL.·PROTECTIONS - ABOUT AN ESPECIALLY PRIVATE SPHERE. JARDINES' home was his PROPERTY; IT WAS ALSO HIS MOST INTIMATE AND FAMILIAR SPACE. The analysis proceeding from each of those facts, as today's decision reveals, runs mostly along the

2 !8

same path.

"I CAN. THINK OF ONLY ONE DIVERGENCE: IF WE HAD DECIDED THIS CASE (JARDINES) ON PRIVACY GROUNDS, WE wOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT KYLLO v UNITED STATES, 533 US 27 (2001), -- ----

ALREADY RESOLVED IT. The KYLLO COURT HELD that POLICE OFFICERS CONDUCTED A SEARCH when they USED A THERMAL-IMAGING DEVICE TO DETECT HEAT EMANATING FROM A PRIVATE HOME (A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE, SPECIFICALLY, ATRwPLEX), EVEN THOUGH THEY C<Xt1MITTED NO TRESPASS. HIGHLIGHTING OUR INTENTION TO DRAW OOrH A. "FIRM" AND A "BRIGHT" LINE AT "THE ENTRANCE TO THE HOUSE I n Id. I at 40 I WE ANNOUNCED THE FOLI.CMING RULE:

"WHERE, AS HERE (AFFIANT'S CASES INCLUDED), THE GOVERNMENT USES A DEVISE that is NOT IN GENERAL PUBLIC USE, TO EXPLORE DETAILS OF THE HOME THAT WOULD PREVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN UNKNCMABLE WITHOUT PHYSICAL INTRUSION, THE SURVEILLANCE IS A . 'SEARCH' AND PRESUMPTIVELY UNREASONABLE WITHOUT A WARRANT." Ibid.

"That 'FIRM' and 'BRIGHT' RULE GOVERNS THIS CASE (EXPLAINING PRECISELY-AFFIANT'S ASSERTIONS, SPECIFICALLY): The POLICE OFFICERS here conducted a search because they used~ 'device ..• not·in general public.use' (A TRAINED DRUG DETECTION DOG) to 'explore details o.f the home' (THE PRESENCE OF CERTAIN SUBSTANCES) that they would not otherwise have discovered without enter1ng the premises." JARDINES,,supra, CONCURRING .3UPREME COURT JTJSTICES I Ibid; emphasis thrbughout AFFIANT Is •.

AFFIANT.has established both, STANDING AND AUTOMATIC STANDING, to have the JUDICIAL SYSTEM "DETERMINE WHETHER THE NON-PHYSICAL INTRUSION CONSTITUTED A 'SEARCH' UNDER THE 'KATZ REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.'" KATZ v US, 389 US 347, 88 S Ct 507, 19 LEd 2d (1967). 'By reason of this. SUPREME COURT decision here, PRO!?ERTY RI(;HTS "ARE NOT THE . SOLE MEASURE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS, "SOLDAL v COOK COUNTY, 560 US 56, 64 (~992) - KYLLO, supra, has too, as concurred in JARDINES, supra, shown that FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS through PRIVACY RIGHTS take FEDERAL PRECEDENT that the named JUDICIAL SYSTEM UNREASONABLY REFUSFS TO EXTEND THAT PRINCIPLE TO THIS NEW CONTEXT WHERE IT DOES APPLY AND IS:'OBJECTIVELY UNREASONABLE, WILLIAMS, 529 US at 409, 411, Id.- but though KATZ may add to the baseline, it does not subtract anything from the . . · AMENDMENT'S PROTECTIONS. "when the GOVERNMENT does engage in [a] physical intrusion of a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AREA," US.v KNOTTS, 460 US 276, 289 (1983)(Brennan, J., concurring in the judgement).

AFFIANT asserts, KYLLO supra, established, living in a TRIPLEX, a multi-family residence, much like AFFIANT'S APARTMENT, that the "NON-PHYSICAL INTRUSION WAS A 'SEARCH' AND IS PRESUMPTIVELY UNREASONABLE WITHOUT A WARRANT," as conducted on AFFIANT'S APARTMENT "PRIOR TO 'ANY WARRANT ISSUANCE, HAVING NO EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CROSSING THAT FIRM AND BRIGHT LINE AT THE ENTRANCE OF AFFIANT~S HOME,' then. using the INFORMATION UNCOVERED TO PROCURE A SEARCH WARRANT FROM A 'MUNICIPAL COURT PRQ-TEM JUDGE, WITH QUESTIONABLE JURISDICTION FOR ISSUANCE. '" s~~, <?-t,t,a~hed MANBAMUS at ·pg ~ 'J, :B. , Id .•

Under TEXAS LAW, TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE §4.14, JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL COURT, the MUNICIPAL COURT PRO-TEM JUDGE'S authority extends only to the relatively straightforward. task of issuing arrest warrants for breach of municipal ordinances. To issue SEARCH WARRANTS, an individual must be capable of making the PROBABLE CAUSE JUDGEMENTS INVOLVED. As JUSTICE STEVENS put in writing for the Court in U~S·~ v ROSS, 465 US 798, 823, n. 32, 72 L Ed 2d 572, 102 S Ct 2157; citing SHADWICK v CITY OF TAMPA, 407 US 345, 32 LEd 2d 783, 92 S .Ct 2219 (1972); as cited in ILLINIOS v GATES, 462 US 213, 262.

JUSTICE STEVENS continues, I would apply the EXCLUSIONARY RULE when it is plainly evident that a MAGISTRATE or JUDGE HAD NO BUSINESS ISSUING A WARRANT. See, AGUILAR v TEXAS, 378 US 108, 12 LEd 2d 723, 84 S Ct 1509 (1964); NATHANSON V US, 290 US 41, 78 LEd 159, 54 S Ct ll (1933). Similarly, the good faith exception would not apply if the MATERIAL PRESENTED to the MAGISTRATE OR JUDGE "IS FALSE OR MISLEADING," FRANKS v DELAWARE, 438 US 154, 57 LEd 2d 667, 98 S Ct 2674 (1978), ... ; GATES, supra, 263-264, Id .• In S'I'ATE ;v ··DAUGHERTY, 931 sw 2d 268, 283, n. 4 ( Tex Crim App 1996) , the TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, ACKNOWLEDGES;

"We also NOTE THE SUPREME . . .

COURT has held EVIDENCE. FOUND PURSUANT TO. AN EXECUTION . .

OF

A VALID SEARCH WARRANT IS ADMISSABLE 'PROVIDED THE INFORMATION USED TO OBTAIN THE WARRANT IS WHOLLYUNffiNNECTED' TO INFORMATION UNCOVERED 'DURING AN E1Uu.IER, INVALID SEARCH. ' " citing, SEGURA v US, 468 US 796, l 04 S Ct 3380, 82 L Ed 2d 599 ( 1984) ; MURRY v US, 487 US 533, 108 S Ct 2529, 101 L Ed 2d 472 ( 1988) ( citing, NIX v WILLIAMS, 467 US 431, i04 S Ct 2501, 81 LEd 2d 377 (1984), Id.

In WONG SUN v US, 371 US 471, 83 S Ct 407, 9 LEd 2d 441 (1963), the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, RULED:

"Where PROBABLE CAUSE for-SEARCH OR ARREST is established by PRIOR ILLEGAL SEARCH OR ARREST, then the same will be TAINTED";THEREBY and THE FRUITS 'l'HEREX)F SUPPRESSED, therefore, NOT ONLY IS 'ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED THEREBY INADMISSABLE' as the RESULT OR

EXPLOITATION OF THAT PRIMARY ILLEGALITY IT IS AS WELL INADMISSABLE AS 'FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE •• II Id.

The.MANDAMUS, attached at pgs. 2- 7, clearly establish that THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, complained of herein, first, HAD NO BUSINESS ISSUING A WARRANT AND THE MATERIAL PRESENTED WAS CLEARLY MISLEADING AS "DOG SNIFF WAS USED AS CONSIDERATION FOR PROBABLE CAUSE;" second, THE DOG-SNIFF INFORMATION USED TO OBTAIN THE WARRANT WAS WHOLLY CONNECTED TO THE INFORMATION UNCOVERED DURING THE EARLIER, INVALID SEARCH; .and, the PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH AND ARREST OF AFFIANT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE PRIOR ILLEGAL SEARCH BY 'THE DOG-SNIFF; THEREFORE, Nffi' ONLY IS ANY EVIDENCE THEREBY INADMISSABLE AS THE RESULT OR EXPLOITATION OF THAT PRIMARY ILLEX;ALITY IT IS AS WELL INADMISSABLE AS FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE.

4 JlJ

The STATE was relieved .of establishing that the arrest was reasonable. See, OURSBOURN v STATE, 228 SW 3d 65, 70 (Tex App- Houston [lstDist] 2009, no pet)(finding egregious harm on remand because STATE was relieved of burden of establishing voluntariness of statement). The TRIAL COURT JUDGE was aware of the effect.of an unlawful/illegal seizure and aware that any evidence obtained as a result of an unl~wful/illegal seizure could not be considered for any purpose. Evidence TAINTED BY UNLAWFUL POLICE ACTION is TRADITIONALLY BARRED AS FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE. See, SEGURA v UNITED STATES, 368 US 796, 804 (1984); WONG SUN v UNITED.STATES, 371 US 471 (1963). Assuming the arrest was illegal, there is a CLEAR AND CASUAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ARREST ,!AND THE ARREST AND DISCOVERY OF THE CHARGE. The STATE has failed to allege that ffiHE DISCOVERY OF THE DRUGS WAS SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL SEARCH,~;SEIZURE, AND ARREST TO PURGE THE TAINT OF THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE. BROWN v ILLINIOS, 422 US 590 (1975); BELL v STATE,7~4 SW 2d 780 (Tex Crirn App 1986). The INTENTIONAL OMISSION of ARTICLE 38.23 CONSIDERATION 'not only vitally affects the defensive theory and PEOPLE as a result suffer egriegious harm, said'ornission fails to EXCLUDE EVIDENCE "OBTAINED BY AN OFFICER OR CY.rHER PERSON IN VIOLATION OF 1 ANY 1 ·

PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, OR. OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF. THE UNITED STATES," TEX CODE CRIM PROC ART.38.23, and truly applicable in \

AFFIANT'S CASES.

In THE KYLLO COURT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SAID, ."We have said that the FOURTH AMENDMENT draws 'A FIRM LINE AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE HOUSE, ' PAYTON, 445 US, at 590. That line, we think, MUST BE:NOT:ONLY FIRM BUT ALSO BRIGHT- which requires clear specification":of those methods of surveillance that require a. warrant. While it is certainly possible to conclude from the videotape of the thermal imaging that occurred in this case (KYLLO) that no 'significant' compromise of the homeowner's privacy has occurred, WE MUST TAKE THE LONG VIEW, FROM THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE FOuRTH AMENDMENT FORWARD. 'The FOURTH AMENDMENT is to be CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF. WHAT WAS DEEMED AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEizuRE WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED, and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual citizens.' CARROLL v UNITED STATES, 267 US 132, 149 ( 1925) .

AFFIANT ASSERTS, "Where·. the: GOVERNMENT uses . :a device that is not in general public use (A DRUG DETECTION DOG, WITHOUT WARRANT), to explore the horne that would previously . have been unknowable without. physical int:usion I the surveillance IS A, I' SEARCH I . AND IS PRESUMPTIVELY UNREASONABLKWITHOUT A WARRANT~ KYLLO, 533 US 27, 40 (2001) JARDINES, 569 us , slip op., at 3, II, and KAGAN J., concurring sl:lp op., at 3 - 4."

In AFFIANT'S CASE, the warranties$ canine sniff (A SENSE - ENHANCING TOOL) was conducted in violation of the EXISTING UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED JUNE 11, 2001 IN KYLLO v UNITED STATES, 533 US 27, 121 S Ct 2038, 150 LEd 2d 94, ON PRIVACY GROUNDS; and now, FLORIDA v JARDINES, 569 US , 133 S Ct 1409, 185 L Ed 2d 495, 81 USLW 4209 (2013), ON PROPERTY GROUNDS, THEREFORE, THE OFFICERS may be '

properly charged with knowledge, THAT THE SEARCH WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. PELTIER, 422 US at 542. Furthermore, "in the sanctity of the home, .ALL DETAILS ARE INTIMATE DETAILS. See e.g., UNITED STATES v KARO, 468 US 705; DOW CHEMICAL CO. v UNITED STATES, 467 US 227, 238, distinguished; see also, KYLLO, supra,.at 28, Id.

AFFIANT ASSERTS, the JUDICIAL SYSTEM, herein, IN AN OBJECTIVELY UNREASONABLE MANNER .

has c-ontinually, REFUSED TO EXTEND THIS PRINCIPLE TO THIS NEW CONTEXT WHERE 3 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES CONCURRINGLY INSIST THAT IT APPLIES as specified in JARDINES, supra,Id. See, attached MANDAMUS at pg. 8, IV. FEDERAL PRECEDENTS (LAW).

The STATES BRIEF ON REMAND, -at pgs. 8 - 9,. f.n ..--3i ·stating: "The record in the instant case is not sufficient to determine whether the area outside Appellant's (AFFIANT'S) apartment door was part of the curtilage." Id.

AFFIANT ASSERTS, OLIVER v UNITED STATES, 466 US 170 (1984), "We (THE UNITED STATES · SUPREME'' COURT) therefore regard the area 'IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING AND ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOME' - what OUR CASES CALL THE CURTILAGE - as 'PART OF THE HOME ITSELF FOR FOURTH AMENDMENT PURPOSES. ' " OLIVER, supra, at 180.

"This AREA AROUND THE HOME IS 'INTIMATELY LINKED TCi THE H(XIIE_, BOTH' PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY 1 1 AND IS WHERE' 'PRIVACY EXPECTATIONS ARE MOsT HEIGHTENiiD. ' " CALIFORNIA _v CIRAOLO, 476 US 207, 213 (1986).

"While BOUNDARIES OF THE C,URTILAGE are generally 'CLEARLY MARKED,' the 'CONCEPTION DEFINING THE CURTILAGE' is at any rate FAMILIAR ENOUGH that it is 'EASILY UNDERSTOOD FROM OUR DAILY EXPERIENCE.'" OLIVER, supra, at 182, n. 12.

HOWEVER, THE DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE IS CLEARLY THE ENTRANCE POINT TO THE HOME AND THE CURTILAGE OF THE HOME WHERE "THE FOURTH ~ DRAWS A FIRM LINE AT THE- ENTRANCE 'IO THE HOUSE," PAYTON, 4§5 US, at 590. "THAT LINE," THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT THINKS, · "MUST BE Nar ONLY FIRM BUT ALSO BRIGHT - WfUCH REQUIRES CLEAR SPECIFICATION OF THOSE METHODS OF SURVEILLANCE THAT REQUIRE A WARRANT •• n KYLLO, supra, at 40.

AFFIANT ASSERTS, THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, PER CURIAM, OPINION, that states: "Appellant was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. A DOG SNIFF AT HIS FRONT DOOR LED 'IO THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM •• "

VACATED AND REMANDED, OCTOBER 23, 2013, Id.

AFFIANT ASSERTS, KYLLO, SINCE JUNE ll, 2001, has ESTABLISHED THAT THE "NON-PHYSICAL INTRUSipN WAS A SEARCH AND IS PRESUMPTIVELY UNREASONABLE WITHOUT A WARRANT" . ;WHEN CONDUCTED ON ANY.DUPLEX, APARTMENT, HOME, DWELLING, ETC., especially AFFIANT'S APARTMENT PRIOR TO ANY WARRANT ISSUANCE, HAVING NO EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CROSSING BOTH A FIRM AND BRIGHT LINE AT THE ENTRANCE TO AFFIANT 1 S APARTMENT, THEREBY USING A DEVICE / TOOL • •• Nar IN PUBLIC USE ( KELEV, DRUG DOG) TO EXPLORE DETAILS OF THE APARTMENT (PRESENCE OF.

6 22

CERTAIN SUBSTANCES) THAT THE. POLICE ~ NOT O'.I'HERWISE DISCOVER WITHOUT ENTERING THE

PREMISES. ( Explained in AFFIANT'S ADDENDUM TO RESPONSE OF TARRANT COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY' LETTER dated Thursday, September 19, 2013, to AFFAINT'S PETITION FOR DESCRETIONARY REVIEW, at pgs. 3 & 4, citing JARDINES, KYLLO, KATZ, inter - alia, ADDENDUM, .supra, Id. ) .

AFFIANT concedes, citing WONGcSUN v US, 371 US 47L 83 S Ct 407, 9 LEd 2d 441 (1963), "Where, as AFFIANT'S-case, PROBABLE CAUSE for SEARCH OR ARREST is established by prior ILLEGAL SEARCH OR ARREST, then the same will be TAINTED thereby and the FRUITS THEREOF SUPPRESSED, therefore~ not only is ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED thereby INADMISSABLE as the RESULT OR EXPLOITATION of that PRIMARY ILLEGALITY is as well INADMISSABLE as ·"FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE." The remainder of the SEARCH WARRANT is moot as well. Id.

AFFIANT ASSERTS, while a search conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding precedents is not subject to the FOURTH AMENDMENT'S EXCLUSIONARY RULE, in the present case, the WARRANTLESS CANINE SNIFF was conducted in DEFIANCE WITH THE EXISTING JUDICIAL PRECEDENT OF KYLLO v UNITED STATES, 5:j3 US 27, 121 S Ct 2038, 150 LEd 2d·94, decided on PRIVACY GROUNDS, a decision established since JUNE 11, 2001 and reaffirmed in FLORIDA v JARDINES, 569 US , 133 S Ct 1409, 185 L Ed 2d 495, 81 USLW 4209, No. ll-564, writ of certiorari, delivered MARCH 26, 2013, DECIDED UNDER PROPERTY GROUNDS. However, while.JARDINES may not be app~ied RETROACTIVELY, KYLLO CLEARLY HAS BINDING PRECEDENTS FOR RELIANCE AS TO WARRANT ISSUANCE FOR CANINE SNIFF, ESPECIALLY, AS THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CONCEDES, "A dog sniff at his (AFFIANT'S) front doorled to the charges against him (AFFIANT). "Per Curiam, opin. VACATE AND REMAND, delivered OCTOBER 23, 2013,- NO. (S) PD-0490-13 & PD-0491-13. Id ..

The UNITED STATE SUPREME COURT RULING IN KYLLO~ supra takes precedents over; TEXAS COURT CASES OF: PORTER v STATE, 93 SW 3d 342, 346 (Tex App- Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet ref'd); RODRIQUEZ v STATE, 106 SW 3d 224, 228-229 (Tex App- Houston [lst Dist] 2003, no pet), cert denied, 540 US 1189 (2004); and MOST.IMPORTANTLY, the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS issue as addressed in, ROMO v STATE, .315 SW 3d 565, 573-574 (Tex App - Fort Worth 2010, pet fef'd) which concluded that canine sniffs of a garage and backyard fence were not searches under the FOURTH AMENDMENT or the TEXAS CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THE DOG SNIFFED AREAS:THAT WERE NOT PROTECTED FROM OBSERVATION BY PASSERSBY AND BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE OOOR OF MARIJUANA COMING . . .

. FROM HIS BACKYARD. Id .• . . . -

THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF. APPEALS cited ROMO for the proposition that a DRUG .DETECTION DOG'S SNIFF of the FRONT DOOR of . DEFENDANT'S ( AFFIANT'S) HOME IS NOI' A ~SEARCH BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE AREA AROUND AN UNENCLOSED

FRONT DOOR. See RIVAS v STATE, 2013 WL 978911 at *1.

Clearly KYLLO OVERRULES most of these cases, supra, and should be revisited by the TEXAS CQURT OF CRIMTf'\jAL APPEALS DUE TO THE WARRANTLESS Il!IREEMI£.S8.BBE:.:SEAR8H.. AND SEIZURES . .. .:.:...\__.:._:·_.:. '-'- ..

· -

AFFIANT CONCEDES the. EXCLUSIONARY RULE "is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS generally through its DETERRENT EFFECTS, rather than a personal CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of a party aggrieved." UNITED STATES v CALANDRA, 414 US 338, 348, 94 S Ct 613, 38 L Ed2d 561 (1974). The EXCLUSIONARY RULE'S sole purpose is to DETER FUTURE FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS. UNITED STATES v LEON, 468 US 897, 909 ~ n~ 2, 104 S Ct 3405, 82 LEd 2d 677. (1984), Id. Furthermore, applicability of THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE is limited to situations in which DETERRENCE is "thought most efficaciously served." CALANDRA, supra, 414 US at 348, Id. The ISSUE OF EXCLUSION is seperate from WHETHER A FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION OCCURRED. ARIZONA v EVANS, 514 US l, 13-14, 115 S Ct 1185, 131 LEd 2d 34 (1995), Id.

AFFIANT CONCEDES the SUPREME COURT declared that "[w]hen the police exhibit "deliberate," "reckless," or "grossly negligent" DISREGARD FOR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, the DETERRENT VALUE OF EXCLUSION IS STRONG and tends to outweigh the resulting costs. " DAVIS v UNITED STATES, US , 131 S Ct 2419, 2427, 180 LEd 2d 285 (2011), Id.

AFFIANT further concedes "if the purpose of the EXCLUSIONARY RULE IS TO DETER UNLAWFUL POLICE CONDUCT, then EVIDENCE OBTAINED:.FROM A SEARCH SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED ONLY i f it can be said .the LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAD ~DGE, OR MAY PROPERLY BE CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE, THAT THE SEARCH WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE. FOURTH AMENDMENT." UNITED. STATES v PELTIER, 422 US 531,

c

542, 95 S Ct 2313, 45 L Ed 2d 374 ( !975)", Id.•

AFFIANT also concedes the TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS has HELD THAT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE did'not PRECLUDE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE from a WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE THAT WAS PERMISSIBLE AT THE TIME OF lHE SEIZURE. SWINK v STATE, 617 SW 2d 203, 209~10 (Tex Crim App 1981).

In KYLLO, supra, at 40, the COURT HELD; "We have said that the FOURTH AMENDMENT DRAWS 'a firm line AT THE ENTRANCE '10 THE HOUSE,' PAYTON, 445 US, at 590. THAT LINE, WE THINK, MUST BE NOT ONLY FIRM BUT ALSO BRIGHT - which REQUIRE CLEAR SPECIFICATION OF THOSE METHODS OF SURVEILLANCE THAT REQUIRE A WARRANT. While it is certainly possible to conclude from the videotape of the thermal imaging that occurred in this case that NO 'SIGNIFICANT' COMPROMISE OF THE HOMEOWNER'S PRIVACY HAS OCCURRED, WE MUST TAKE THE LONG VIEW i FROM THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT FORWARD. Id.

" 'The. FOURTH AMENDMENT IS TO BE CONSTRUED IN THE. LIGHT OF WHAT WAS DEEMED. AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED, AND IN A· MANNER WHICH WILL-CONSERVE PUBLIC INTERESTS AS WELL AS THE INTERESTS AND RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS .• ' " CARROLL v UNITED STATES, 267 us 132, 149 (1925).Id.

"Where, as here (AFFIANT'S CASE ALSO), the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, TO EXPLORE DETAIL OF THE HOME that WOULD PREVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN . UNKNOWABLE WITHOUT PHYSICAL INTRUSION, THE SURVEILLANCE IS A 'SEARCH' AND IS PRESUMPTIVELY UNREASONABLE. WITHOUT A WARRANT. Id.

9

"Thus, OBTAINING BY SENSE- ENHANCING TECHNOLOGY [A SNIFF BY KELEV THE DRUG -

DETECTION DOG] ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE HOMES INTERIOR that could NOT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN OBTAINED WITHOUT PHYSICAL 'INTRUSION INTO A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AREA,' SILVERMAN v UNITED STATES, 365 US 505, 512, CONSTITUTES A SEARCH - AT LEAST (AS HERE) [AFFIANT INCLUDED] THE TECHNOLOGY IN QUESTION IS NOT IN GENERAL PUBLIC USE. THIS ASSURES PRESERVATION OF THAT DEGREE OF PRIVACY AGAINST GOVERNMENT THAT EXISTED WHEN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED." KYLLO, supra, at 28, b, decided JUNE ll, 2001, Id.

AFFIANT ASSERTS the KYLLO COURT furtherHELD "The QUESTION WHETHER A WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A HOME IS REASONABLE AND HENCE CONSTITUTIONAL MUST BE ANSWERED NO IN MOST INSTANCES, ..• " Id. at 28, a; see also, FLORIDA v JOELIS .JARDINES, 569 US (2013) slip op l - 5, JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, concurring (citing KYLLO, AND STATING, "·It is not suprising that a case involving a search o:f a home, property. concepts and privacy concepts· should so align) . " ·~As KYLLO made clear, the 'sense-enhancing' tool at issue may be 'crude' or 'sophisticated,' may. ·. be old or new ••. , may be ei thet:" smaller or bigger than a breadbox; stl.ll, 'at least where (as here)[AFFIANT INCLUDED]' the devise is not 'in general public use,' training it on a home violates our 'minimal expectation of privacy' - an expectation 'that exists, and is acknowledged to be reasonable.'" c~ting KYLLO, 533 us, at 34, 36, Id. "That does not mean the device is off limits, •.. ; it just means policeofficers cannot use it to examine a home without a warrant or exigent circumstance. See BRIGHAM CITY v STUART, 547 US 398, 403- 404 (2006)(describing exigencies allowing the warrantless search of a home). JARDINES, KAGAN CONCuRRING, at *5, Id. ~'

AFFIANT contends the aforementioned factual· LAW with THE RECOBD establishes the collation of Circumstances inferred from the concert actions among the alleged PARTICIPANTS, listed above as, "JUDICIAL SYSTEM too include ATTORNEY OF RECORD, JIM SHAW." With said facts, and/or circumstantial evidence to follow, is sufficient to prove an existance of a "CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND IGNORE STATE AND FEDERAL PRECEDENT TO UNLAWFULLY CONVICT AND CONFINE AFFIANT." Although, under FEDERAL LAW, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove an existance of A CONSPIRACY To DENY AFFIANT'S LIBERTY (See, 18 USCA § 371; also, US v THON, 917 F 2d 170, Id.).

AFFIANT deposes: AFFIANT asserts, THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM too include ATTORNEY OF RECORD JIM SHAW, has had this intentional, known, and reckless' ignorance for the FEDERAL PRECEDENT of the KYLLO v US, supra, Id., DELIVERED and ESTABLISHED JUNE 11, 2001, and TEXAS STATE PRECEDENT of TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE § 4.14, JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL COURT, being ignored in a manner that involves SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF AFFIANT'S LIBERTY.

The facts in STATE v DAUGHERTY, 931 SW 2d 268, 283 established (Tex Crim App 1996)

the TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS acknowledges; "The SUPREME COURT has held evidence found pursuant to an execution of A VALID SEARCH WARRANT IS ADMISSABLE PROVIDED THE

10

INFORMATION USED TO OBTAIN THE WARRANT 'WHOLLY UNCONNECTED TO INFORMATION UNCOVERED DURING AN ·EARLIER, INVALID SEARCH. ' "

The facts in AFFIANT'S SEARCH WARRANT establish, "The canine ALERTED to the presence of narcotic odors from the residence, AND INFORMATION WAS INCLUDED IN THE AFFIDAVIT OFFICER'S USED TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT FOR AFFIANT'S APARTMENT. "

The facts of both, the KYLLO CASE established since JUNE 11, 2001, and AFFIANT'S PRESENT CASE was decided under PRIVACY RIGHTS, with AFFIANT'S CASE BEING VACATED AND REMANDED.

The facts of the TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS on OCTOBER 23, 2013 IN AFFIANT'S PRESENT CASE ESTABLISHED, "A OOG SNIFF LED TO THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM."

The facts in AFFIANT'S PRESENT CASE and FEDERAL CASE LAW SINCE 1978 ESTABLISH the good faith exception does not apply as THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IN OFFICERS AFFIDAVIT to the MUNICIPAL COURT PRO-TEM JUDGE could be conscrued as .MISLEADING and possibly, as such, FALSE.

The facts of TEXAS LAW particularly, TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL APPEALS ARTICLE § 4.14i JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL COURT, and FEDERAL CASE LAW, at mihimum since 1972, ESTABLISHES, "The PRO-TEM JUDGE of. the MUNICIPAL COURT OF FORT·WORTH, TEXAS has authority that 'ExTENDs ONLY' to the RELATIVELY STRAIGHT FORWARD TASK OF ISSUING ARREST WARRANTS FOR BREACH OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES. " THEREBY, AFFIANT'S WARRANT FOR SEARCH AND ARREST WAS TO BE CONSIDERED OF NO FORCE OR EFFECT AS ISSUED, UNLAWFULLY CONVICTING AND CONFINING AFFIANT ThlROUGH SAID SEARCH AND ARREST.

The facts of TEXAS LAW, supra, and. FEDERAL CASE LAW SINCE 1933 ESTABLISHES, the MUNICIPAL COURT PRO-TEM JUDGE of' FORT WORTH, TEXAS had NO BUSINESS ISsuiNG THE SEARCH AND ARREST WARRANT.

The facts BRIEFED BY AFFIANT HEREIN, THE ATTACHED MANDAMUS, .AND RECORDS OF BRIEFINGS THROUGH THIS ENTIRE APPEAL PROCESS ESTABLISH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, as referenced herein, too include ATTORNEY OF RECORD JIM SHAW, HAS CHOSE TO, NOT ONLY ABUSE THEIR DISCRETION BUT HAVE DECIDED THROUGH THEIR ACTION TO ENTER INTO A "CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND IGNORE STATE AND FEDERAL PJlliCEDENT TO UNLAWFULLY CONVICT AND CONFINE AFFIANT."

AFFIANT is reminded of a case very similar to this PRESENT CASE in which an ATTORNEY OF RECORD, much like JIM SHAW, called a witness, much like OFFICER J.C. WILLIAMS, and through questioning established the OFFICER had IGNORED PROPER PROCEDURE, FAILED TO DO-A· PROPER INVESTIGATION OF CORROBORATING FACTS AS TO THE ACCUSED, FAILED TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT TO USE A TOOL NOT IN GENERAL PUBLIC USE, SUCH AS KELEV THE DRUG DETECTION DOG, EVEN WENT TO A COURT, MUCH LIKE THE MUNICIPAL COURT PRO-TEM JUDGE OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS, WHO LACKED JURISDICTION UNDER TEXAS LAW TO ISSUE SAID SEARCH WARRANT, however, ATTORNEY FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY RULING OR MAKE ANY OBJECTIONS TO PRESERVE THESE ERRORS, NOR WERE THEY ADDRESSED IN THE APPEAL PROCESS, MUCH LIKE ATTORNEY .. '

.OF RECORD JIM SHAW.

HOWEVER, THE TRIAL JUDGE, MUCH LIKE JUDGE MIKE THOMAS, during questioning of the witness, raises his hand with all questioning coming to a stop, and he says to the PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT, MUCH LIKE SARAH E. BRUNER WITH ASSISTANT BROOKE PANUTHOS, "THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT THESE GOYS,u pointing to OFFICER on witness stand, "ARE IN SUCH A HURRY TO GET THIS GOY," pointing to DEFENDANT, "THAT THE PROPER PROCEDURES ARE NOT BEING FOLJ:.OoJED. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE NEEDING TO DEAL WITH. DO YOU SEE THAT ?" Then the PROSECUTOR, IN FEAR THE JUDGE WOULD DO THE RIGHT THING AND EXCLUDE THE EVIDENCE, THEREBY DISMISS THE CASE CAN ONLY REPLY, "YES YOUR HONOR, YES YOUR HONOR, YES YOUR HONOR," all the while JUDGE FULLY AWARE HE HAD A DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO DO JUST THAT, DISMISS THE CASE, CHOSE TO ABUSE HIS DISCRETION, IGNORING THE FACTS OF BOTH A FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION, AND TEXAS LAW VIOLATION, TO THEN GESTURE WITH HIS HAND FOR THE QUESTIONING TO CONTINUE. However, upon DEFENDANT receiving the TRANSCRIPTS THIS PORTION HAD BEEN ENTIRELY OMITTED. · When the EXCLUSIONARY RULE'S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO DETER FUTURE FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS, Id., citing UNITED STATES v LEON, 468 US 897,.909 n.2, 104 S Ct 3405, 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984), and when APPLICABILITY OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE is limited to SITUATIONS IN WHICH DETERRENCE IS "THOUGHT MOST EFFICACIOUSLY SERVED," DAVIS, 131 S Ct at 2426, citing CALANDRA, 414 US at 348, with the SUPREME COURT declaring that "[w]hen the police exhibit 'deliberate,' 'reckless,' or 'grossly negligent' DISREGARD FOR _FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THE DETERRENT VALUE OF EXCLUSION IS STRONG AND TENDS TO OUTWEIGH THE RESULTING COSTS. II DAVIS I supra I 'at 2427 I Id: ~-.

It is'very clear from the KYLLOCASE, supra, that established since JUNE 11, 2001, that the WARRANTLESS SEARCH WITH KELEV THE DRUG DETECTION DOG WAS NOT PERMISSABLE AT THE TIME OF SAID SEARCH, NOR HAS IT BEEN SINCE JUNE 11,· 2001, thereby A FOcliTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION OCURRED.

The "MOST EFFICACIOUSLY SERVED" DETERRENT IS TO NOT ONLY OVERTURN THE AFFIANT'S PRESENT CASE FOR A DELIBERATE, RECKLESS, AND GROSSLY NEGLIGENT DISREGARD FOR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATION, BUT TO OVERTURN ALL VIOLATIONS WHERE A DRUG DETECTION DOG HAS BEEN USED IN THE SAME MANNER WITHOUT FIRST PROCURING A SEARCH WARRANT AS ESTABLISHED JUNE 11,_ 2001, in KYLLO v US, supra, Id. Thereby ceasing the lower COURT OF APPEALS UNCONSTITUTIONAL RULINGS WITH AFFIRMATIONS OF CONVICTIONS THROUGH SAID ILLEGAL / UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURES ESTABLISHED UNDER FEDERAL PRECEDENT OF KYLLO.

AFFIANT is as well covered under TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE § 38.23, where the SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS HAS REAFFIRMED THE PRESENT CASE AS THE SEARCH WARRANT AND AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE MUNICIPAL COURT PRO-TEM JUDGE'OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS lacked JURISDICTION TO ISSUE, and as issued of NO FORCE OR EFFECT.

ll z1

•·

AFFIANT has established a clear LIBERTY INTEREST ISSUE wherein there exist the established fact that the herein NAMED JUDICIAL SYSTEM too include ATTORNEY OF RECORD JIM SHAW, have whether by calculated intent and design, or by their combined error, incompetance, apathy and ignorance, have collectively-, whether either through their acts of commission and/or omission, have entered into "A CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND IGNORE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW PRECEDENT TO UNLAWFULLY CONVICT AND CONFINE AFFIANT," specifically, VIOLATING FOURTH AMENDMENT, TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE(S) §§ 4.14, MUNICIPAL COURT JURISDICTION, 38.23 STATUTORIAL EXCLUSIONARY RULE, excluding evidence "obtained by an officer or other person in violation of ANY PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, OR OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; and IGNORING FEDERAL PRECEDENT OF KYL·LO v US, 533 US 27, 121 S Ct 2038, 150 L Ed 2d 94, SERIOUS CONFLICTIONS '.ro TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS RULINGs, to subject ·this~AFFIANT to CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATIONS AND INJURIES thereby inflicting grievous losses of the AFFIANT'S PROTECTED LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY INTEREST BY AND THROUGH THEIR BLATANT VIOLATIONS AND LACK OF REQUISITE PROCESS BEFORE DEPRIVING AFFIANT OF THOSE INTERESTS.

Wherein THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, NAMED HEREIN, TOO INCLUDE ATTORNEY OF RECORD JIM SHAW, THROUGH COLLECTIVE ACTS, AS COMBINED IN THEIR CONSPIRACY AND AS UTILIZED IN A JUDICIAL PROCESS that as designed, struc:tured, implemented, and as currently practiced in THE JUDICIAL' .SYSTEMS TOO INCLUDE ATTORNEY OF RECORD JIM SHAW'S OPPRESSIVE, ABUSIVE, AND GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL APPLICATION TO THIS AFFIANT, WAS TOTALLY LACKING IN EVEN A FACSI~ILE

OF REASONABLE SAFEGAURDS THAT ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT AGAINST ' '

UNJUSTIFIED DEPRIVATIONS OF AFFIANT'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS~ Whereby, THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, herein, too include ATTORNEY OF RECORD JIM. SHAW'S, COLLECTIVE ACTS / CONSPIRACY has resulted IN VIOLATIONS THAT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT. Thereby, SUBJECTING AFFIANT TO THE DEPRIVATION OF HIS FuNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. RESULTING IN A COMPLETE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH FAIR PROCEDURE; TO A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT AND INJURY OF THE AFFIANT.

AFFIANT THEREFORE STATES, SHOULD THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS NOT GRANT RELIEF AND A WRITTEN ORDER TO ACQUIT THE AFFIANT BASED ON THE LAW HEREIN AND THROUGH THE ATTACHED MANDAMUS THROUGH THE RECORDS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE, THAT THEY TOO BE ENJOINED INTO THE INVESTIGATION, HEARINGS, PROSECUTIONS AND CONVICTIONS FOR THE "CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND IGNORE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW PRECEDENT TO UNLAWFULLY CONVI¢T AND CONFINE AFFIANT." THIS IS AFFIANT'S REQUEST OF TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. ~

~~~~·~

AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NOT.

GERARDO TOMAS ~AS #01766735 AFFIANT / PRO-SE

12

JB

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that true and correct copies of: THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS and the attached AFFIDAVIT COMPLAINING OF: CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND IGNORE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW PRECEDENT TO UNLAWFULLY CONVICT AND CONFINE AFFIANT, being submitted to the TEXAS'ATTORNEY GENERAL, has been submitted return receipt applied to: . 1) OFFICE OF TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL, PROSECUTION SECTION, 209 W. 14th St., P.O. Box 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 - 2548;

2) COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, P.o .. Box 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711; 3) Hon.Lisa Me Minn, STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, P.O. Box 12405, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711; . 4) SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, TIM CURRY BLDG., 401 W. BELKNAP St., Ste. 9000, FORT WORTH; TEXAS 76102;

5) Hon. Michael Thomas, JUDGE, CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4, TIM CURRY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER, 401 W. BELKNAP St., FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76196; 6) Charles M. Mallin, ASST. CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 401 W. BELKNAP St., FORT WORTH, TEXAS.76196; and, 7) Jim H;·shaw, 916 W. BELKNAP St., FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102. SIGNED AND SUBMITTED d_C) day of __,J~[1:::..L-'cl~~!"'=-·_ _ _· _ _--f.-2Jl5. ~ /7,..

/~·~/'~. <3JiJRARDO TOMAS RIVAS #01766735

UNSWORN DECLARATION

I, GERARDO TOMAS RIVAS, TDCJ-ID NO. 01766735, PRO-SE RELATOR I AFFIANT, for the matters stated in THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS and the attached AFFIDAVIT COMPLAINING OF: CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL AND IGNORE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW PRECEDENT.TO UNLAWFULLY CONVICT AND CONFINE AFFIANT, being confined in the STATE OF TEXAS entitles the use under both, FEDERAL LAW (28 USCA § 1746), and TEXAS STATE LAW (VTCA CIV PRAC AND REMS CODE §§§ 132~001 - 132.003) of this UNSWORN DECLARATION to declare under penalty of perjury, and RELATOR I AFFIANT DOES SO DECLARE: IN PLACE OF A WRITTEN DECLARATION, VERIFICATION, CERTIFICATION, OATH, OR AFFIDAVIT SWORN BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC, that the facts deposed, and the facts of record claimed are true and correct as stated in documentation listed above under penalty of perjury by this RELATOR I AFFIANT, thereby, through this UNSWORN DECLARATION are to be considered VERIFIED, CERTIFIED, AND SWORN TO BY THIS RELATOR I AFFIANT. SIGNED AND .sUBMITTED ao day of _;J~.u'-L-!.1~f4c'-J(!=------' 125 ____.., --0 ~~~ GERARDO TOMAS RIVAS~766735 POWLEDGE UNIT TIC N - 64 1400 FM 3452 PALESTINE, TEXAS 75803 -2350