Page 64 - TPA - A Peace Officer's Guide to Texas Law 2015

Under the facts of this case, we agree with the court of appeals that the police observations of the
controlled purchase and the reasonable inferences there from were sufficient to support a finding of probable
cause. The affidavit in this case states that Lubbock police officers initially received information from Clovis
law enforcement a reliable source that Appellant was distributing narcotics from 4 his residence. To corroborate
this tip, officers enlisted the help of a confidential informant (CI), who was familiar with cocaine deals and had
proven to be reliable and credible, to conduct a controlled purchase of crack cocaine from Appellant. The CI was
first searched to ensure that he did not have any contraband on his person prior to the transaction. Then, a police
surveillance team observed the CI make contact with the unknowing participant. This individual told the CI that
he would go to Appellants house to pick up the crack cocaine. Police observed the individual go to Appellants
house, enter, and exit a few minutes later. The unknowing participant then drove straight to the predesignated
location and delivered the crack cocaine to the CI.

It was reasonable for the magistrate to infer that the unknowing participant obtained the crack cocaine
from Appellants residence. Indeed, as the Supreme Court noted in Gates, probable cause does not deal with
hard certainties, but with probabilities. Id. at 231. It is based on common-sense conclusions about human
behavior formulated by practical people. Id. Although it is possible that the third party obtained the cocaine
from some other source as Appellant contends, Appellant presents no persuasive argument as to why the
magistrates inference that the third party bought the crack cocaine from Appellant was unreasonable.
Additionally, unlike a confidential informant, the unknowing participant in this case appeared to be unaware of
his participation in the police-conducted controlled purchase and, therefore, had no apparent motive to engage in
subterfuge to mislead the police. Further, Appellant presents us with no facts to indicate that the unknowing
participant had such a motive.

Accordingly, we agree that the magistrate had a substantial basis for determining that there was a fair
probability that crack cocaine would be found at Appellants residence, and we affirm the judgment of the court
of appeals.

th
Moreno v. State, No. PD-1731-12 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 11 , 2013).

FISA WARRANT

So long as the underlying FISA search warrant contains information to indicate that a suspect is an agent
of a foreign power evidence from the warrant may be used to support a purely domestic criminal conviction.

Defendant/Appellant was found guilty of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction under 18 U.S.C.
§2332a(a)(2) and appealed arguing, among other legal grounds, that the district court improperly denied his
motion to suppress evidence.

Appellant is a national of Saudi Arabia who initially came to the United States to study chemical
engineering. According to the evidence presented during Appellants trial, Appellant spent several months during
late 2010 and early 2011 acquiring nearly all of the chemicals necessary to manufacture a powerful explosive
known as picric acid. The evidence also indicated that Appellant had become committed to jihadist operations
and compiled a list of targets for bombing attacks. These targets included the Dallas residence of former
President George Bush, the Cotton Bowl, and various Dallas festivals.

In 2011, the FBI conducted searches of Appellants apartment and computer pursuant to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). These searches were authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court (FISC) under 50 U.S.C. §1805(a) and §1824(a) based on an ex parte showing of probable cause to
believe that Appellant was an agent of a foreign power under 50 U.S.C. §1801. Appellant was arrested on
February 23, 2011.

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 57 2015 Edition