## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 11 - 00357 - CR

DILLON MICHAEL ERCK APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 43RD DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- A fter the trial court denied Appellant Dillon Michael Erck’s pre trial motion to
suppress , he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain , to the first

- degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, gamma hydroxybutyric acid, in the amount of 200 gram s or more but less than 400 grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(9), .115(e) (West 201 0 ). The trial court sentenced
him to ten years’ confinement and a $2,000 fine , but t he court suspended the

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

confinement portion of Erck’s sentence and pl aced him on community supervision for ten years

. In a single point, Erck challenges the deni al of his motion to suppress. We will affirm. Police o fficers received an anonymous tip that the occupants of a duplex in Weatherford were possessing and using m arijuana. The tipster gave officers the duplex’s location and description and the license plate number for a “suspe ct vehicle” at the residence. Officers confirmed the identity of the occupants

— Erck and two other males

— the location of the home, and the p resence of the vehicle. Officers also collected a black plastic bag of trash that had been set out for garbage collection on the curb in front of the duplex

. Officers found two small plastic baggies containing a useable amount of marijuana and mail addre ssed to the duplex’s address inside the trash bag. Officers obtained a search warrant that day and, upon executing the warrant, found a plastic baggie of marijuana and gamma

- hydroxybuty ric acid. Erck filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the search w arrant was not supported by probable cause. At the suppression hearing, the State introduced in evidence the search warrant, the supporting affidavit, and the officer’ s return and inventory. Erck argued at the hearing that the anonymous tip combined with a single trash search was insufficient to support probable cause. Erck’s argument on appeal is that “he had an expectation of privacy in the contents of the seized trash bag, such that the trial court’s ruling on the3

suppression issue was legally inco rrect.” This argument does not comport with the argument he made to the trial court

. A reviewing court should not address the merits of an issue that has not been preserved for appeal. Wilson v. State , 311 S.W.3d 452, 473 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (op. on r eh’g). To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific grounds for the desired ruling if they are not apparent from the context of the request, objectio n, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Lovill v. State , 319 S.W.3d 687, 691

– 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Error, if any, in the admission of evidence allegedly obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure is waived if a proper objection is not m ade at the time the evidence is introduced. Dinkins v. State , 894 S.W. 2d 330, 355 (Tex. Crim. App.) , cert. denied , 516 U.S. 832 (1995)

. Here, Erck did not assert his expectation

- of

- privacy argument in his suppression motion, at the suppression hearing, or in his brief to the trial court that he filed after the hearing

. 2 In his motion, Erck generally asserted violations of his constitutional and statutory rights “under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution, and under Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,” but as the court of criminal appeals has held, arguments that are

2 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court asked both sides to provide briefing on the suppression issue.4

global in nature and contain little more than citation to constitutional an d statutory provisions do not preserve error. S ee S wain v. State , 181 S.W.3d 359, 365 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) , cert. denied , 549 U.S. 861 (2006) ; s ee also Resendez v. State , 306 S.W.3d 308, 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (stating that suppression motion’s
cita tion to a rticle 38.22 insufficient to preserve for appeal the specific violation of a subsection of a rticle 38.22 claimed by appellant on appeal). Erck focused specifically on the alleged lack of probable cause in his motion and post

- hearing brief and in his arguments at the suppression hearing

. The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusion s of law did not address any expectation of privacy associated with the trash bags. Because Erck’s appellate argument was not preserved at the trial level, we over rule his sole point. 3 See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Swain , 181 S.W.3d at 365. We affirm the trial court’s judgment

PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and GABRIEL, JJ.

3 Furthermore, E rck concedes on appeal that the Supreme Court’s opinion in California v. Greenwood controls this case and sup ports the trial court’s ruling, but he argues that we should nonetheless reconsider this issue. See 486 U.S. 35, 40, 108 S. Ct. 1625 , 1628

– 29 (19 8 8) (holding that Fourth Amendment protection not implicated in search of garbage left on curb for trash colle ctor because a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those items ). Even if we were to reach the merits of Eric’s complaint, we are bound by the Supreme Court’s holding in Greenwood

. See State v. Guzman , 959 S.W.2d 631, 633 (Tex. Cri m. App. 1998) (explaining that w hen we decide cases involving the United States C onstitution, we are bound by United States Supreme Court case law interpreting it ).5

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: November 1, 2012