Page 59 - Police Officer's Guide 2013

using a flashlight to look around, which was also suspicious. When appellant asked him, What gave you the
right to go into the office?, Deputy Brown testified, Its an officer safety issue. I dont know whats inside. At
trial, Deputy Brown testified that when he saw someone outside the closed business, he was not sure what to
think because theres graffiti in the area. Possibly could be breaking into a building, could be breaking into the
vehicle. Deputy Frazur, who arrived while Deputy Brown was inside the office with appellant, testified that for
reasons of officer safety, he wanted to be able to clearly see appellant and the other officers at all times.
Based on this testimony, the trial court reasonably could have found that Deputy Browns warrantless entry was
justified by the need to protect himself from a suspicious person who might have been going inside the building
to retrieve a weapon, to prevent appellant from escaping following a theft of a vehicle or business, or to prevent
appellant from destroying evidence of a potential theft or drug related crime.

We hold that, based on Deputy Browns uncontroverted testimony on these issues, the trial court could
have properly concluded that the initial entry into the building was permissible because the State established both
probable cause and exigent circumstances. Therefore, the trial court did not err in concluding that the question
of appellants consent was immaterial in determining whether the initial entry was lawful.

st
th
Max-George v. State, No. 01-10-00497-CR (Ct. App Hou. [1 . Dist] July 28 , 2011).

SEARCH WARRANTS INFORMANTS

Defendant who was charged with possession of cocaine filed motion to dismiss evidence seized from his
residence during execution of search warrant, alleging the warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause. The
District Court granted the motion and dismissed the charge. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Court of
Criminal Appeals again reversed holding that warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause necessary for
issuance of warrant to search defendants residence.

The search warrant affidavit was based almost entirely on hearsay information supplied by a first-time
confidential informant who was not identified. Standard language regarding the informants reliability was in
the affidavit and included: he has pending charges; he is hoping for a dismissal or favorable plea bargain; he
knows he will not benefit unless the information provided is valid; and he knows the criminal consequences for
giving false informationthe informant demonstrated a knowledge about drugs that was consistent with affiants
knowledge about drugs. That is, the informant knows cocaine when he sees it.

However, the Court of Criminal Appeals recognized that information about the credibility of the
informant was lacking with the following comments: But tips from anonymous or first-time confidential
informants of unknown reliability must be coupled with facts from which an inference may be drawn that the
informant is credible or that his information is reliable.

We agree with appellee that there was no substantial basis for crediting the first-time informants hearsay
statement. Officers failed to corroborate the informants tip except to confirm appellees address. The tip was not
a statement against interest, nor repeated by other informants. There was no accurate prediction of future
behavior. This tip was a first-hand observation, but it contained no particular level of detail regarding appellees
premises or his criminal activity. Police failed to corroborate the tip except to confirm Mr. Duartes address.

The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded its ruling in favor of the defendant with the comments: We
agree with the State that an affiants basis for finding the informant reliable need not be of any certain nature.
But, whatever its nature, it must be demonstrated within the four corners of the affidavit. Here, the affiant-officer
believed that the confidential informant was credible largely because he was a confidential informanta
snitch with pending criminal charges who wanted to trade a tip for leniency. We decline to equate the reliability

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 52 2013 Edition