### NUM BER 13-07- 0004 5-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
JOH N WA LT ER CA LD WEL L, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 84t h Dist rict C ou rt of M on tg ome ry

C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Fol low ing the de nia l of his moti on to su ppress ev ide nce, appel lan t, John W alt er Cal dw ell , pl eaded g uil ty to the o ff ense of poss ess ion of a controll ed s ubst ance. See T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481.115 (c ) (V er non 200 3)

. The tr ial co urt c erti fied Cal dw ell 's r ig ht t o appea l and as ses sed puni shmentat tw enty y ears' co nfinement in theO n cr oss- exam i nat i on by t he St at e, W al t er C ur t i s H i ght ower adm i t t ed t hat he was t he p er son who 1 c a l l e d D e te c ti v e J o n e s to re p o rt th a t C a l d w e l l h a d c ra c k c o c a i n e i n h i s p o c k e t. 2 T exas Depa rtme nt of Criminal Justice-In stitutio nal D iv ision. By three issue s , Ca ldw ell appeal s t he tr ial co urt' s d eni al of his moti on to su ppress
. W e rev erse and remand. I. S UP P RE S S I ON H E A RI NG At the hea ring on his mo tion to supp ress evidence, Caldwell asserte d tha t the police sei z ed cra ck

cocai ne in v iol ati on of

the Uni ted S tates and Tex as Con sti tuti ons. See U .S. C ON ST
. A MEND . I V; T EX
. C ON ST . art. I, § 9. T h e c ra c k cocaine w as foun d w hen police
e n te re d a t o o l sh e d on th e pre m ise s o f Ca ld well ' s r e s i d e n ce w it h o u t f irs t o b ta in in g a
w ar ra nt. At the h ear ing , t he St ate p re sent ed th e tes ti mony of Det ect iv es Car l Jones and Ricky Cathe y ; Caldw ell presen ted the te stimo ny of W alter Curtis Hig hto w er. Det ect iv e J ones tes ti fied th at he recei v ed a cal l from an a nony mous p erson w ho 1 infor med hi m that a bla ck male, w ear ing a bla ck hat, bla ck shi rt , w hit e undershi rt , and bl ue jean s w ould have crack cocain e in his rig ht f ront po cket ata hou se locat ed a t 407 Marli n Street. Det ect iv e Jones sta ted that after re cei v ing the cal l, he pic ked up Det ect iv e C athey and proceed ed to the loc ati on. Det ect iv e Jones further tes ti fied th at, w hen t hey ar ri v ed, s ome men w ere s tandi ng
around i n the dr iv ew ay area of the re si dence

. De tec ti v e J ones saw C ald w ell st andi ng betw ee n tw o bu i l di ng s , w ea r i ng c l ot hi ng i de nt i c al to th at de s c r i be d by th e c al l er. He tes ti fied th at after

they ex it ed th eir

v ehi cl e, C a ld wel l "made a mov ement t ow ards a [t ool shed] behi nd th e hous e." Before Cal dw ell stepped int o the tool sh ed, D etec ti v e J ones saw th atC al dw el l h ad h i s h an d i n hi s r i g htfron t po c k et , w hi c h c once rned h im "b ec au s e my person that had g iv en me t he i nformati on adv is ed me t h a t th e narcot ic s w oul d be in the3

rig ht f ront po cket." Specif ically , Detect iv e Jo n e s s a w C a ldw ell pull his han d ou t of his pock et be fore he w ent i nto t he to o l sh e d

. Det ect iv e J ones re ached the tool sh ed as Caldwell exited, the n "ste ppe d up into the [too l shed] " to " ma ke sure the re was nob ody else ins ide " and "direct ed [C ald w ell ] tow ards Det ect iv e Cat hey ." D etec ti v e J ones tes ti fied th at "there w as a too lbo x

i nsi de. And I justg lan ced dow n, an d y ou c oul d s ee th e c ell ophane
narco tics." He retrieved the na rcotics and arrested Caldw ell. Det ect iv e C athey

testi fied that Detecti v e Jones tol d him w hat the s uspect w oul d be
w ear ing , and thatafter

ar ri v ing at the loc ati on, he saw that Cal dw ell w as w ear ing cl othi ng
as desc ri bed. D etec ti v e C athey ex pla in e d that , bas ed on Det ect iv e J ones' s i nformati on that Cal dw ell had crack i n hi s fro n t rig ht po ck et, he focus ed hi s a ttent ion on C ald w ell to make s ure tha t he did not throw the crack

aw ay
. Det ect iv e C athey st ated: At t hat p oin t w hen w e pul led up he w as sta rt ing to w alk aw ay from us , and his rig ht ha nd went into h is right p ocket

. . . . He w alked to a–I w ould sayit's li ke a detac hed g arag e w it h a door facing nor th. At that poi n t h e st arted ent e r i n g t h e d o o r
. A n d I s a w h i s r i g h th a n d c o me o u ta n d h i m d i s a ppear ins ide

. Accordin g to Dete ctiv e Cath ey, he stayed w ith the three o r fo u r in d ividuals w ho were sta ndi ng i n the dr iv ew ay , w hil e D etec ti v e J ones follo w ed C ald w ell to the t ool shed, and by the time h e reach ed it, Caldwell w as exiting. De t ective Jones sen t Caldw ell to w here Det ect iv e C athey

w as sta ndi ng , t hen ent ered th e too l shed. W hen he ex it ed the tool sh ed, h e ha d se vera l ro ck s o f cra ckco ca in e th a t were w ra p p e d in a p la st ic b a g. Aft er h ea r i ng t he e v i de nc e, t he t r i al c ou rt de ni ed C al dw el l ' s mo ti on t o s uppress. Cal dw ell su bsequentl y

pl eaded g uil ty

and w as sent enced to tw enty y ears' co nfinement. This appeal ens ued.4 II. A PPLI C A B LE L A W A ND S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW An ind iv idua l is guarant eed the right to be secu re f ro m un reaso nab le searche s. U. S. C ON ST . amend IV; T EX
. C ON ST . art. I, § 9. A w arrantle s s s e a rc h is presump tiv ely
unreason abl e under

the Four th A mendment, unl ess a rec og niz ed ex cept ion to the w ar ra nt requireme nt exists. United Sta tes v. Ka ro , 46 8 U .S

. 7 0 5 , 717 ( 1984) ; Fons eca v. State , 881 S. W .2d 144, 149 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1994, no pet.) . The Stat e may v ali date
a w ar ra ntl ess se ar ch under the doct ri ne of ex ig ent ci rc umstan ces , w hic h is a recog niz ed
ex cept ion to the w ar ra nt req uirement. Guti er re z v. Sta te , 22 1 S. W .3 d 68 0, 685 (Te x . C r i m. App. 2007) ; see Fon seca , 881 S.W .2d a t 149 (p ro v idi ng that "[t] he Stat e bears the b urden of establ is hin g the leg ali ty of a w ar ra ntl ess se ar ch or se iz u re "). U nder

the ex ig ent circumsta nces d octrine , the State may justif y a wa rr a n tless sea rch or entry of a specif ic loc ati on i f it show s t hat: (1) probabl e cause ex is ted at th e ti me the search w as made; an d (2 ) ex ig ent ci rc umstan ces ex is ted, w hic h made the p ro cur ing of a w ar ra nt i mpracti cabl e. Guti er re z , 221 S.W .3d a t 685 ( prov idi ng that "if pol ic e hav e probabl e c ause coupl ed w it h
an e x igent circumsta nce . . . the Fourth A m end me nt w ill tolera te a warrant less search" );
see Par ker v. Sta te , 206 S.W .3d 5 93, 5 97 ( Tex . C ri m. Ap p
. 2 0 06) ( set ti ng out that "a
w a rr a n t less ent ry

into a reside nce is consid ered equiv alen t to a w arrantle ss search" ); Mc Nai ry v. Sta te , 835 S.W .2d 101 , 106 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91) (en ba nc). P roba ble cau se is the accu mu lation of

facts w hich, w hen v iew ed in the ir tota lity , w ould lead a rea sona ble police o f f ice r to conclud e, w ith a fair proba bility , tha t a crime ha s bee n com mitt ed o r is bei ng co mmitt ed. Par

ker , 206 S.W .3d a t 599

.5

An an onymo us tele pho ne ca ll, stand ing alone, w ill notprovi de su f f icient prob ab le
caus e for a w ar ra ntl ess se ar ch. Roj as v. State , 797 S.W .2d 4 1, 43 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1990) (e n banc ); Gl

ass v. Sta te , 681 S.W .2d 599 , 601 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 84) (en ba nc) (p ro v idi ng thatan a nony mous p hone c a l l , w i t h o u t c o r ro b o rati on, w il l nev er prov ide su ff ic ien t facts th at w ould a uth oriz e a w arrantle ss se arch). " Moreover, m ere corrobo ration of deta ils that are eas il y obtai nabl e at the ti me the infor mati on is prov ide d w il l not s uppor t a findi ng of proba ble ca use. " Par is h v . St ate , 939 S.W .2d 2 01, 2 03 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus tin 1 9 97, n o pet.)

. How ev er , t hroug h i ndependen t c or ro borati on of the infor mant' s i n f o rm ati on, t he pol ic e can prov ide other ind ic ia of the i nformant' s reli abi li ty

. El ar do v . St ate , 163 S.W .3d 760, 767 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2005, pet. re f'd); Parish , 939 S.W .2d a t 2 0 3. Indi ci a of
re li abi li ty of th e i n f o rm a n t' s t ip inc lud e the extent of detai l that is prov ide d and w hether future ev ents are predi cte d. See E is enhauer

v. Sta te , 67 8 S. W .2 d 94 7, 9 55 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1984) ( en banc ); see als o Il li noi s v . G ates , 462 U .S. 213, 244- 46 ( 1983) ; Roj as , 797 S.W .2d a t 44 (s etti ng out that anony mous t ip did not prov ide informati on based on spe ci al or person al knowledge). W hether the tr ial co urt proper ly

deni ed a defendant' s motion to suppress is a mix ed q uest ion of law

and fact. Est

ra da v . St ate , 154 S.W .3d 604 , 607 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05); Guz m an v . St ate , 955 S.W .2d 85, 87 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1997)

. "W hen re v iew ing a t ri al court's ruling on a mixed question of law and fact (as is t h e d e t e rmina tion o f proba ble
caus e i n the pretr ial suppress ion heari ng in this case) , the court of appeal s may

rev iew de
nov o the tr ial co urt' s a ppl ic ati on of the law of search and s eiz ure to the facts of the c ase. " Est ra da , 154 S.W .3d a t 607

. Al thoug h "[w]e rev iew de n ov o the appli cat ion of the law to6

facts . .

. w e al so afford al most total deferen ce to t he tr ial co urt' s e v alu ati on of the credi bil ity and demeanor of t he w it ness es w ho tes ti fied at the p re -t ri al hear ing ." Id. "The q uest ion of w het her a spe cif ic search or seizu re i s 'reason able ' or suppo rted by probab le cause under the Four

th A mendment i s s ubj ect to de nov o rev iew ." Di xon v. State , 206 S.W .3d 613 , 616 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06). T he e v iden ce mu st be v iew ed in the lig ht most favorable to t he tr ial co urt' s rul ing w hen the tri al cour t makes no ex pli ci t f ind ing s of his tor ic al fact, as in thi s c ase. Id. W e mustuphol d the tr ial co urt' s r uli ng i f it is correctunder a ny theo ry of law appl ic abl e to the c ase. Est ra da , 154 S.W .3d a t 607

. III . A N AL Y S IS By hi s first is sue, C ald w ell as ser ts that, i n c onsi der ing the total ity of the ci rc umstan ces , t he pol ic e di d nothav e the requ ire d probabl e c ause to j ust ify the
wa rr a n t le s s e n t ry i n t o t h e t o o l s h e d

. T h e S t a t e a rg u e s t h a tt h e d e t e c t ive s d id h a ve probabl e c ause to en ter the tool sh e d bec ause "[C ald w ell 's ] ac ti ons cor ro borated the phoned- in ti p." Detect iv e Jon es test if ied th at he received a call f rom "a perso n" w ho informe d him tha t Caldw ell w ould have crack cocaine in his right f ront pocke t and would be at 407 Marli n Street. D etec ti v e J ones did not ide nti fy the p erson w ho s uppl ied thi s i nformati on, a nd th e Stat e di d notpresentany testi mony

or ev ide nce re g ardin g the person' s reli abi li ty

. See Roj as , 797 S .W .2d a t 43. R ely ing on Lunde v . St ate , the State argues thatCaldw ell's act ion s a t t he s cene cor ro borated the i nformati on prov ide d by the infor m a n t. See 736 S.W .2d 665, 667 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1987)

. How ev er , i n Lunde , the State provi ded ev iden ce of the informant 's rel iab il ity , w hil e in this case there w as none. See i d. ("As w as the case7

in W haley v. State , 686 S.W .2d 950 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1985) , the i nformant w as one w ho had g iv en reliable and credible informa tion in th e pa st, resulting in criminal con v ictions." ). Standi ng al one, the t ip in the p re sentca se compl etel y lack s t he nec ess ar

y i ndi ci a of reliability . It provi des n o informa tion f rom w hich to conclud e the caller w as ho nestor his informa tion reliab le, an d giv es no indicatio n for t he basis of h is kn owl edge of

app ellant 's
cr imi nal ac ti v it ies

. See Dowler v. State , 44 S.W .3d 666, 67 0 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2001, pet
re f'd) (e x pla ini ng that"[a] n ac curate desc ri pti on of a subj ect 's re adi ly obser v abl e l ocat ion and app earance w il l hel p the pol ic e cor re ctl y ide nti fy the p erson w hom the ti pst er meant to ac cus e, bu t doe s n ot s how thatthe ti pst er

has kn ow led g e o f

c o nceal ed c ri minal activity "). Th erefore, th e Sta te w as re qu ir e d to pro v ide ot her indicia o f the informa nt's
re li abi li ty

. See Whaley, 6 8 6 S

. W

. 2 d a t9 5 1 (" [A ] d e f ic ie n c y in o n e [ e le m e n t(r e li a b il it y,
v eracity or b a s is o f

knowl edge)] m ay be co mp ensa ted for, in det ermin ing the overall
re li abi li ty of a ti p .
. . by

so me other

i ndi ci a of reli abi li ty .") ; El ar do , 163 S.W .3d a t 768

. The Stat e urg es thi s Cou rt to c oncl ude t hat t he det ect iv es "w ere abl e to cor ro borate the k ey deta il of the t ip–that the c ocai ne w oul d be in [C ald w ell 's ] fron t r ig ht po ck et–by obser v ing [C ald w ell ] s tuff

hi s h and i nto t he v er

y poc ketthe ti pst er

sa id the d ru g s w oul d be found and t hen hea din g tow ards the t ool sh ed." W e de cli n e t o do so. See Par ker , 206 S.W .3d a t 597 ( "[W ]hen the q uest ion i s p ro babl e c ause to cross the threshol d of a pr iv ate residen ce, prob able cause may point to the loca ti o n, bu t notnece ssarily a specif ic perso n ." ). T he fact that Cal dw ell put his hand in his r ig ht po ck et as he e ntered th e too lAn ano ny m ous t i p m ust be cor r obor at ed by f act s bef or e t he o ff i cer s m ay cond uct t he war r ant l ess 2 s e a rc h

. C o m p a re G l a s s v . S ta te , 681 S. W

. 2d 5 99, 601 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 198 4) ( en ba nc ) ( concl udi ng t hat off i cer s di d no t hav e pr obabl e cause t o ei t her ar r est or sear ch appel l ant ' s v ehi cl e ba sed o n t he f ol l owi ng f act s: ( 1) an anony m ous ca l l er t ol d di spat ch t hat t he o ccupant s of t wo aut om obi l es wer e shoot i ng at each ot her at a cer t ai n i nt er sect i on i n t own; ( 2) off i cers st at i oned t hem sel v es ne ar t he i nt er sect i on b ut di d no t see any
" unusua l act i v i t y occur r i ng o r t aki ng p l ace, such as pe r sons i n on e v ehi cl e s ho oti ng a t p er sons i n an ot her v ehi cl e " ; ( 3 ) t h e o ff i c e r s o b s e r v e d t h e v e h i c l e s wh i c h t h e a n o n y m o u s t i p s t e r d e s c r i b e d d r i v i n g n e a r t he i nt er sect i on; ( 4) t he o ff i cer t est i f i ed t hat t he p assenge r " l ooked at hi m " and " seem ed ki nd o fner v ous" ; ( 5) t he passeng er t ur ned away f r om t he o ffi c er as he l ooked at t he p assenge r ; and ( 6) t he p assenge r m ade t he offi c er ne rvou s ) w i th E is e n h a u e r v . S ta te , 678 S

. W

. 2d 947, 955 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 198 4) ( en b anc) ( appl y i ng t he t ot al i t y of

t he ci r cum st ances appr oach t o a war r ant l ess ar r est and fi ndi ng t hat ev en i fbase d on an anony m ous i nf or m ant , t he o ff i cer had a subst ant i al basi s t o con cl ude t her e was p r obabl e cau se t o ar r est t he appel l ant base d on t he f ol l owi ng f act s: ( 1) t he i nf or m ant " gav e t he off i cer a f ai r det ai l ed p hy si cal descr i pt i on oft he appel l ant and hi s cl ot hi ng, gi v i ng appel l ant ' s nam e, and pr edi ct i ng hi s fu t ur e act i ons t hat dayand t he pur pose ofapp el l ant ' s t r i p" ; ( 2) t hen pol i ce cor r obor at ed " ev er y f acet oft he i nf or m at i on g i v en [ t o po l i ce] by t he in f o r m e r e x c e p t w h e th e r a p p e lla n t h a d a c c o m p lis h e d h is m is s io n a n d t h e c o c a in e w a s o n h is p e r s o n o r in h is bag" ; and (3 ) appel l ant ' s act i ons " i n t he a i r por t aft er ar r i v al , al bei t m ost l y i nnocen t , t oget her wi t h hi s r eact i ons w h e n h e l e a rn e d th e o ff i c e rs b e l i e v e d h e p o s s e s s e d c o c a i n e b ro u g h t f ro m M i a m i

. . . ."); I llinois v. G at es , 462 U

. S. 213 , 244
- 46 ( 1983) (f i ndi ng t hat an off i cer ' s i ndepe ndent i nv est i gat i v e wor k cor r obor at ed a n an ony m ous l et t er ' s pr edi ct i ons a nd t hat t he " l et t er wr i t er ' s accur at e i nf or m at i on as t o t he t r av el pl ans of each of t he G at eses was ofa char act er l i k el y obt ai ned onl y f r om t he G at eses t hem sel v es, orf r om som eone f am i l i ar w i t h t hei r not en t i rel y ordi na ry t rave l pl an s " ). 8 shed w as not s uff ic ien t to cor ro borate the ti p that Cal dw ell had dr ug s i n hi s p ock et t hereby author iz ing a w ar ra ntl ess entr y i nto t he to ol shed. See R oja s , 797 S.W .2d a t 44. 2 F u rt h e rm o re , e ve n if t h e fa c t t h a tCa ld we ll p u th is h a n d in h is ri gh tp o c k e tm a y h a ve led Dete ctiv e Jon es to susp ect th at Caldwell had drugs in h is p ocket , Detect iv e Jon es did not s ear ch Cal dw ell 's r ig ht po ck et, but i nst ead ent ered th e too l shed. Hug hes v. State , 24 S.W .3d 833 , 838 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00) (providing tha t "[p ]roba ble cau se requires more than mere sus pic ion "). Therefore, cons ide rin g the total ity of the c ircums tanc es, the t i p s t e r ' s i n fo r ma t i o n w a s n o t s u ffi c i e n t l y c o r ro b o ra t e d b y t h e p o l i c e
. See R oja s , 797 S.W .2d a t 43; see als o Hall v. Sta te , 7 4 S

. W

. 3 d 5 2 1 , 5 2 5 ( Te x . A p p
. –A ma r i l l o 2 0 02, n o pet.) ( "[T]he t ip must be c or ro borated not o nly as to the i denti ty of t he i ndi v idu al soug ht t o be a ccused but also as to the improp er natu re of his condu ct." ). Base d on our rev iew

of t he record, w e conclu de tha t the ev iden ce, w hen v iew ed in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the tr ial court 's rul ing , is not enoug h to est abl is h tha t t here w as9

probabl e c ause for Detecti v e J ones to be li ev e w it h a fai r probabi li ty thata c ri me had b een
or w as bei ng commi tted in the tool shed. See Par ker , 206 S.W .3d at 599 , 601 . Becau se De t e c t ive Jo n e s ' s wa rr a n t le s s e n t ryi n t o Ca ld we ll ' s t o o l s h e d wa s u n re a s o n a b le , we
conc lud e tha t t he tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on w hen i t den ied C ald well's moti on to suppress
. See Parish , 939 S.W .2d a t 203 ; see als o Gut ier re z , 221 S.W .3d a t 685 -8 6 ( "If the State doe s n ot ade quately est ablish b oth proba ble cau se an d exig entcircumsta nces, the n a w arrantle ss entry w ill no t w ithsta nd judicial scrutiny."). W e susta in Caldwell' s f irst is sue. M oreov er , w e need not address Cald w ell 's second and t hird i ss ues becau se they
are notdi spos it iv e. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.1. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e rev erse and remand for proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

. NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 2 1stday

of Aug ust , 200 8.