## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . P D - 1205- 08
THE S TA TE OF TE X AS

v. R O B E R T L E A H Y P O W E L L , A ppel l ee
ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE S ECON D CO URT O F AP PEALS

TARRA NT CO UNTY P RI CE , J. , f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on.

DI S S E NT I NG OP I NI ON I agr ee w i t h t he C our t t hatt he s ei zur e of the s afe i n w hi ch t he met hamphet ami ne w as d isc o v e re d c o n stitu ted a n in c re m e n tal in tru sio n u p o n a p o ss e ss o ryin ter e st f o r F o u rth A m endment purpos es . E ven t hough t he off i cer s coul d have s ear ched the s afe s w hi l e t hey
w e re o n th e p re m ise s o n a u th o rityo f th e w a rra n t, th e y c o u ld n o t r em ove t he s afe s t o a di ffe r ent l ocat i on t o conduct t he s ear ch abs ent s om e exi gent ci r cumst ance t hat w oul d m akePowell — 2

1 United States v. Robbins , 21 F.3d 297, 300- 01 (8 Cir. 1994). th 2 SeeMajority

opinion, at 3. s ear chi ng on t he pr emi s es i m pr act i cabl e— unl es s , of cour s e, t he w ar r antactual l yaut hor i zed
s ei zur e of t he s afes
. T he C our t goes on t o hol d t hatt he w ar r antdoes aut hor i ze s ei zur e of 1 t he s afe s . W i t h t hi s I r es pect ful l ydi s agr ee. T h e w a rra n t in th is c a se a u th o riz e s the o f f ice rs “ to se ize ” “ th e p ro p e rtyd e sc rib e d ” in t he i ncorpor at ed w ar r antaff i davi t . Par agr aph 2 of t he w ar r ant aff i davi t expr es s l y s et s out t he “P R O P E R T Y
. . . D E S C R IB E D [,]” bu t t his paragraph, w hil e i t speci fi es cer t ai n ch ecks, el ectr oni c equi pm entforfor gi ng chec ks , and t w o i t ems s t ol en w i t h count er fei t chec ks ( even
s uppl y i ng a s er i al num berfor t he s t ol en t el evi s i on, s o t hat i t m i ght be di s t i ngui s hed fr om any ot hert el evi s i on t hatm i ght be found) , m akes no m ent i on of a s afe
. L at er , i n t he par t of t he 2

w a rra n t a f

f id a v it in ten d e d to su p p ly th e n e c e ss a ryp ro b a b le c a u se , b rie f a llu sio n is m a d e to a safe t hat w as p urchased from H om e D epo t w i t h w hat, i n con t ext, w e m aysupp ose w as a f o rg e d c h e c k (a lth o u g h , c o n tra ry to th e C o u rt’s s u g g e stio n , the a f f id a v it d o e s n o t ex p re ss ly
s ays o)
. T he i nfor m ant i ndi cat es t hat t he saf e w as l ocat ed i n t he hous e t o be s ear ched. B ut t he af fi davi t does not ot her w i s e “des cr i be” the s afe w i t h anys peci fi ci t y . I cannotconcl ude th a t th e w a rra n t af

f id a v it rea lly“ d e s c r ib e d ” th e sa f e a t all, m u c h les s th a t itd id so w ith
su f f icie n t p a rticu lar ityto sa tisf yth e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. I ndeed, t he w ar r antaff

i davi t does not even pr ovi de enough det ai l t o di s t i ngui s h w hi chPowell — 3

3Sta tev . Powe ll , 268 S.W .3d 626, 631 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2008). 4 Marron v. United States , 275 U.S. 192, 196 (1927). 5 Id
. o f th e tw o sa f

e s a c tu a llyse ize d w a s th e sto len sa f e . A s th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls re m a rk e d in its
o p in io n , the a f

f id a v it “d id n o t in d ica te w h a t th e sa f e w o u ld b e u se d f

o r, it s s ize , it s c o lo r, it s br and, or any t hi ng el s e t hatw oul d di s t i ngui s h t he s afe fr om al l ot hers afe s . ” E ven as s um i ng 3 th e w a rra n t af

f id a v it w o u ld a u th o riz e th e se izu re o f th e sto len sa f

e f ro m th e p re m ise s, it unequi vocal l ydi d not aut hor i ze the s ei zur e of two s afe s , and pr ovi des no bas i s t o det er m i ne wh i c h o f t h e t wo s a f

e s t h e o f f i c e r s c o u l d s e i z e . F r o m th e s c a n t i n f o r ma t i o n p r o v i d e d , we
c a n n o t k n o w w h e th e r th e m e th a m p h e tam in e w a s ac tu a lly f o u n d in th e sa f

e th a t th e a f

f id a v it
m ent i ons , or i n t he unment i oned s afe
. T hi s uncer t ai nt yunder s cor es t he verypurpos e behi nd t he par t i cul ar i t yr equi r ement of t he Fo u r t h A m endment as i t per t ai ns t o t he s ei zur e of p ro p e rt y , i
. e. , to “ p re v e n t[ ] t h e s e iz u re o f o n e th in g u n d e r a w a rr a n t d e s c ri b in g a n o th e r.” 4 “A s t o w hati s t o be t aken, not hi ng [s houl d be] l eftt o t he di s cr et i on of t he offi cerexec ut i ng the w arran t. ” H er e , the p o li ce o ff icers co u ld n o t hav e d eterm ined w h ich s af e the yw ere 5 aut hor i zed t o s ei ze. U nder t hes e ci r cumst ance s , t he cour t of appeal s w as cor r ectt o concl ude t hatt he par t i cul ar saf

e m ent i oned i n t he w ar r antaff i davi t w as des cr i bed w i t h i ns uffi ci ent p a r t i c u l a r i t y t o a u t h o r i z e t h e m t o s ei ze ei t her of the t w o safes t hey fou nd on t he p rem i ses. I cannotfat hom how t he C our t now di vi nes t hatt her e i s s uffi ci entpar t i cul ar i t yt o aut hor i zePowell — 4

6 E.g. , Arlin ev . S

tate , 7 21 S.W. 2d

34 8, 35 3 n .9 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 19 86 ); Le ev . S tate , 791 S.W. 2d 14 1, 14 2 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 19 90 ); Ho lla nd v. State , 8 02 S.W. 2d 69 6, 70 0- 01 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 19 91 ); Str inge r v . S

tate , 241 S.W .3d 52, 59 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Georg e E. Dix & Robert O. Daw son, 43A T EX A S P RACT I CE : C RI M I N A L P R AC TI C E AND P ROCE D U RE § 44.21, at 858-59 (2d ed. 2001). 7 Hudson v. Mic higan , 547 U.S. 586 (2006). 8 Pro f e s s o r L aF av e h a s ar gu e d th at th e g o o d f a it h e xc e p ti o n ann ounced in Un i ted States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897 (1984), should a pply in this context. Way

ne R. L aF ave, 2 S EA R C H AND S EI ZURE : A T RE AT I S E ON TH E F OUR TH A MENDME NT § 4.06 (4 ed. 2004), at 604. Accordingly , “suppre ssion th is r e qu ir e d b e c a

us e of a pa rt ic ula ri ty de fe c t on ly

if thewa rrant w a s ‘ so fa c ia lly

de fi c ie nt—i.e ., in t he off i cer s t o s ei ze b o th
. F in a lly, I w o u ld n o t r e a c h th e a lte rn a tiv e q u e s tio n w h e th e r, as s u m i nga F o u rth A m endment vi ol at i on, t he exc l us i onar yr ul e ought t o appl y . G i ven t he C our t ’ s hol di ng t hat t he s ei zur es w er e, i n any event , aut hor i zed by t he w ar r ant , t hi s i s s ue does not ar i s e, and t he C our t ’ s di s cus s i on of i t i s pur el yadvi s or y . A nd even i f t he C our t agr eed w i t h m e t hatt he
w arr ant does nota u th o riz e se izu re o f th e sa f e s, it w o u ld b e in a p p r o p ria te to re a c h th is ques t i on. T he St at e has not ar gued atanyl evel of t hes e pr ocee di ngs
— i n t he t r i al cour t or on appea l

— t hatt he exc l us i onar yr ul e oughtnot t o appl y . B eca us e t he i s s ue w as neverj oi ned bel ow , t her e i s no “dec i s i on” fr om t he cour t of appeal s w i t h r es pect t o t hati s s ue t hatw e may
r evi ew i n our capa ci t y as a di s cr et i onar y r evi ew cour t . T he C our t r eac hes i t s d esir ed 6
co n clus ion at l ea st p artl y o n the b asis o f a p lurali typ o rt ion o f a U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt opinion that is n o t pr eci s el yon poi nt . N ei t hert he par t i es nor t he cour t of appe al s have 7 addr es s ed t he advi s abi l i ty o f ext endi ng t he hol di ng of t hatcas e t o t he di s t i nctfac t s her e. 8Powell — 5

faili ngto p art ic ula

ri ze . . . thethi ngto b e se ize d— that th e e xecut in g o ffi c e r c ann ot r e a so na bly presume it to be va lid.” Id ., quoting Leon , su pra , at 923. Be cause the Court doe s not recognize a particula rity problem in this case at all, it is ill-equipped to ask whe ther the de fec t is so gre at that the police off icer s could not rea sonably have pr esumed that th e wa rrant authorized them to seize the safe s. Instead, it resor

ts to Hudson fo r a fa

r mor e c ate g oric a l pro po sit ion —th at th e e xclu sio na

ry ru le is simpl y too “massive” a

reme dy ever to apply under these c ircumstance s and that civil reme dies will suffice. We should not leap to such a dubious conclusion without the benefit of brief s from the parties a nd a dec ision from the court of appea ls to review. T he w hol e ent erpr i s e i s ant i
- adver s ar i al , i l l
- i nfor m ed, and ant i
- s y s t emi c. I abs t ai n. I w o u ld sim p ly af

firm the jud g m en t o f the co u rt o f ap p ea ls up h o lding the tri al co u rt ’s
ru lin g . B e c a u se th e C o u rt d o e s n o t, I res p e c tf u llyd iss e n t.

Fi l ed: M ar ch 3, 2010 P ub l i sh