## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TE XAS

N O

. P D

- 1 6 3 5

- 1 0

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

v

.

R O Y A N D R E W W E A V E R

, A p p e l l e e

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E N I N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

P O L K C O U N T Y

C O C H R A N

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t i n w h i c h M E Y E R S

, P R IC E

,

W O M A C K

, J O H N S O N a n d A L C A L A

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , f i l e d a d i s s e n t i n g

o p i n i o n i n w h i c h K E A S L E R a n d H E R V E Y

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. K E A S L E R

, J

. , f i l e d a d i s s e n t i n g

o p i n i o n i n w h i c h K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , a n d H E R V E Y

, J

. , j o i n e d

.

O P I N I O N

F o u r p o l i c e o f

f i c e r s c a m e t o M r

. W e a v e r ’ s w e l d i n g s h o p l o o k i n g f o r a p e r s o n w a n t e d

i n a n o t h e r c o u n t y

. M r

. W e a v e r g a v e t h e o f f i c e r s c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h f o r t h a t p e r s o n

. T h e

o f f i c e r s

, o v e r M r

. W e a v e r ’ s o b j e c t i o n

, e n d e d u p s e a r c h i n g a v a n o n h i s p r o p e r t y a n d f i n d i n g

d r u g s i n i t

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e g r a n t e d M r

. W e a v e r ’ s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s b e c a u s e h e f o u n d t h a t

t h e s e a r c h o f t h e v a n e x c e e d e d t h e s c o p e o f M r

. W e a v e r ’ s c o n s e n t

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

,Weaver Pag e 2

o v e r a d i s s e n t

, a f

f i r m e d

. W e g r a n t e d r e v i e w i n l i g h t o f t h e j u s t i c e s ’ d i s a g r e e m e n t

. B e c a u s e

w e a g r e e t h a t t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s c a s e t u r n s o n t h e s c o p e o f M r

. W e a v e r ’ s c o n s e n t

, w e

a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d t h a t o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

.

I

.

R o y A n d r e w W e a v e r o w n e d a w e l d i n g s h o p i n P o l k C o u n t y

. T h e r e w a s a f r o n t o f f i c e 1

a n d a w o r k s h o p i n t h e r e a r

. A t t h e b a c k o n o n e s i d e o f t h e w o r k s h o p w a s a n o p e n b a y d o o r

w i t h a v a n b a c k e d i n t o i t

. A l s o p a r k e d i n t h e b a c k y a r d w e r e s e v e r a l “ b r o k e n d o w n ”

v e h i c l e s

, a b o a t

, a n d “ s o m e o t h e r i t e m s

. ” O n e d a y

, w h i l e t h e s h o p w a s o p e n

, f o u r P o l k

C o u n t y n a r c o t i c s o f

f i c e r s c a m e l o o k i n g f

o r J e r r y B a r k s d a l e ( “ B e a r ” )

, w h o w o r k e d o r “ h u n g

o u t ” a t t h e s h o p

. B e a r w a s w a n t e d i n a n o t h e r c o u n t y f o r o r g a n i z e d c r i m e

. W h e n t h e o f f i c e r s

a r r i v e d

, t h e y s a w B e a r ’ s c a r p a r k e d o u t i n f r o n t o f t h e s h o p

. T h e o f f i c e r s a s k e d M r

. W e a v e r

i f t h e y “ c o u l d l o o k a r o u n d f o r t h e g u y

, ” a n d h e g a v e t h e m “ c o n s e n t t o l o o k f o r h i m

. ”

T h e o f f i c e r s l o o k e d a r o u n d f

o r a b o u t t e n m i n u t e s

, b u t B e a r w a s n o t a t t h e s h o p n o r

i n s i d e t h e v a n t h a t w a s b a c k e d u p i n t h e w o r k s h o p b a y d o o r

. N o n e t h e l e s s

, b e c a u s e t h e

n a r c o t i c s o f

f i c e r s h a d r e c e i v e d i n f

o r m a t i o n “ t h a t t h e r e w a s a l s o m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e b e i n g u s e d

a n d d i s t r i b u t e d f

r o m t h e b u s i n e s s

, ” t h e y l i n g e r e d i n t h e s h o p

.

S e r g e a n t S m i t h “

j u s t b e g a n t a l k i n g t o M r

. W e a v e r

. W e w e r e s t a n d i n g j u s t i n s i d e t h e

s h o p

. I a s k e d h i m i f h e h a d a n y i l l e g a l g u n s

, k n i v e s

, n a r c o t i c s

, a n y t h i n g l i k e t h a t

. H e

a d v i s e d n o

. H e

– w e l l

, h e d i d t e l l m e h e h a d s o m e g u n s i n s i d e t h e o f f i c e

. ” M r

. W e a v e r

The shop is locate d at 203 Gra y Drive in L ivingston. 1Weaver Pag e 3

s h o w e d S g t

. S m i t h t h e l i c e n s e d g u n s i n h i s o f f i c e

. A f t e r t h e y c a m e o u t o f t h e o f f i c e

, S g t

.

S m i t h t h e n a s k e d “ w h o t h e v a n b e l o n g e d t o

. ” M r

. W e a v e r s a i d t h a t i t w a s h i s d a d ’ s v a n b u t

t h a t h e d r o v e i t

. W h e n S g t

. S m i t h a s k e d i f h e c o u l d s e a r c h t h e v a n

, M r

. W e a v e r r e f u s e d

c o n s e n t

.

A s s o o n a s M r

. W e a v e r r e f u s e d c o n s e n t

, S g t

. S m i t h t o l d L i e u t e n a n t L o w r i e t o r e t r i e v e

h i s d r u g

- d o g f

r o m t h e p a t r o l c a r a n d r u n t h e d o g a r o u n d t h e v a n p a r k e d i n t h e b a y d o o r o f t h e

w o r k s h o p

. T h e d o g s h o w e d “ o d o r r e s p o n s e ” t o t h e p a s s e n g e r d o o r

. T h e v a n w a s s e a r c h e d

,

a n d a t i n b o x t h a t c o n t a i n e d g l a s s p i p e s a n d s o m e m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e w a s f o u n d o n t h e

f l o o r b o a r d b e t w e e n t h e d o o r a n d t h e p a s s e n g e r ’ s s e a t

. M r

. W e a v e r w a s a r r e s t e d a n d c h a r g e d

w i t h p o s s e s s i o n o f

m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e

. H e f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s w h i c h t h e t r i a l j u d g e

,

a f t e r h e a r i n g t e s t i m o n y f

r o m S g t

. S m i t h a n d L t

. L o w r i e

, g r a n t e d

. T h e j u d g e e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s

o f f a c t

, i n c l u d i n g t h e f

o l l o w i n g :

3

. T h e d e f

e n d a n t g a v e t h e o f

f i c e r s p e r m i s s i o n t o s e a r c h h i s s h o p f o r

B a r k s d a l e

. . . .

4

. A v a n w a s l o c a t e d b e s i d e t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s s h o p o n p r o p e r t y o w n e d b y

t h e d e f e n d a n t

. O f

f i c e r s l o o k e d t h r o u g h t h e v a n w i n d o w s a n d d i d n o t

s e e B a r k s d a l e o r a n y c o n t r a b a n d

.

. . .

6

. T h e o f

f i c e r s a s k e d t h e d e f

e n d a n t f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o s e a r c h t h e v a n

. T h e

d e f e n d a n t r e f

u s e d p e r m i s s i o n a n d t h e o f f i c e r s u s e d a d r u g c a n i n e t o

w a l k o u t s i d e o f t h e v a n

.

B a s e d u p o n h i s f

a c t u a l f i n d i n g s

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e c o n c l u d e d

,

T h e o f f i c e r s e x c e e d e d t h e s c o p e o f t h e i r s e a r c h a f t e r t h e y d i d n o t f

i n d

B a r k s d a l e a n d t h e y d i d n o t h a v e e n o u g h c a u s e t o c o n d u c t t h e c a n i n e s e a r c h o nWeaver Pag e 4

t h e v a n w h i c h t h e y d i d n o t s e e b e i n g o p e r a t e d

.

T h e S t a t e a p p e a l e d

, a r g u i n g t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s a n d M r

. W e a v e r h a d a c o n s e n s u a l

i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t n e v e r b e c a m e a d e t e n t i o n u n t i l t h e c a n i n e a l e r t p r o v i d e d p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o

a r r e s t M r

. W e a v e r

. M r

. W e a v e r r e s p o n d e d t h a t t h e c o n s e n s u a l e n c o u n t e r b e c a m e a n

u n l a w f u l d e t e n t i o n b e f

o r e t h e d o g s n i f

f

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a f f i r m e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g

a n d h e l d

,

I n t h i s c a s e

, t h e e v i d e n c e s h o w s t h a t w h e n t h e o f f i c e r s ’ s e a r c h f

o r “ B e a r ”

e n d e d

, t h e y h a d n o t o b s e r v e d a n y t h i n g s u s p i c i o u s

. B e c a u s e t h e t r i a l j u d g e

c o u l d h a v e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t W e a v e r ’ s c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h f o r “ B e a r ” h a d e n d e d

,

t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y f i n d t h a t t h e o f

f i c e r s

, w i t h o u t e s t a b l i s h i n g

p r o b a b l e c a u s e

, w e r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o s e a r c h f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s u n r e l a t e d t o t h a t

o f t h e i r i n i t i a l s e a r c h

. U n d e r t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e

, w e c o n c l u d e t h e t r i a l c o u r t

d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g W e a v e r ’ s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s

. T h e t r i a l

c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g i s a f

f i r m e d

. 2

J u s t i c e G a u l t n e y d i s s e n t e d

. H e f r a m e d t h e i s s u e a s “ w h e t h e r t h e c a n i n e s n i f f o f t h e

e x t e r i o r o f t h e v a n w h i l e t h e o f f i c e r s w e r e t a l k i n g w i t h W e a v e r w a s a n i m p e r m i s s i b l e

‘ s e a r c h ’ f

o r F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t p u r p o s e s

. ” H e c o n c l u d e d

, “ I n t h i s c a s e t h e o f f i c e r s w e r e 3

o n t h e b u s i n e s s p r e m i s e s l e g a l l y w i t h t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e o w n e r

. T h e y h a d n o t b e e n a s k e d t o

l e a v e

. A l t h o u g h t h e o w n e r r e f u s e d c o n s e n t t o a s e a r c h o f t h e v a n

, t h e c a n i n e s n i f f o f t h e

e x t e r i o r o f t h e v a n

, m a d e w h i l e o f f i c e r s w e r e q u e s t i o n i n g W e a v e r

, w a s n o t a ‘ s e a r c h ’ f o r

State v. W

eave r , 2010 Tex. App. L EXI S 7425, *9 (Tex. App.—Bea umont Sept. 8, 2010) 2

(not desig nated f

or publication)

Id . at *10-11 (G aultney , J ., dissenting)

. 3Weaver Pag e 5

F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t p u r p o s e s

. ” 4

T h e S t a t e P r o s e c u t i n g A t t o r n e y ( S P A ) f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w

, a s k i n g :

“ M a y p o l i c e c o n d u c t a d o g s n i f f o f t h e e x t e r i o r o f a n u n o c c u p i e d v e h i c l e i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t

o f a b u s i n e s s w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e o w n e r o f t h e b u s i n e s s ? ” W e g r a n t e d r e v i e w i n

l i g h t o f t h e j u s t i c e s ’ d i s a g r e e m e n t o n a m a t e r i a l q u e s t i o n o f l a w

. 5

I I

.

A

. S t a n d a r d o

f R e v i e w

.

W h e n r e v i e w i n g t h e r u l i n g o n a s u p p r e s s i o n m o t i o n

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n

o f f a c t s

– i f s u p p o r t e d b y t h e r e c o r d

– i s a f f o r d e d a l m o s t t o t a l d e f

e r e n c e

. R e g a r d l e s s o f

6

w h e t h e r t h e j u d g e g r a n t e d o r d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n

, a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e

l i g h t m o s t f

a v o r a b l e t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s r u l i n g

. T h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i s a f f o r d e d t h e s t r o n g e s t 7

l e g i t i m a t e v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e a n d a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s t h a t m a y b e d r a w n f r o m t h a t

e v i d e n c e

. W e r e v i e w a t r i a l c o u r t ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w o f s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e t o t h e f a c t s 8

Id. at *11-12 (c iting City of Indianapolis v. Edmond , 531 U.S. 32, 40 (2000); Illinois v. 4

Caballes , 543 U.S. 405, 410 (2005); United States v. Place , 462 U.S. 696, 707 (1983)).

T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 66.3(e). 5

State v. W

oodard , 341 S.W .3d 404, 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Guzman v. 6

State , 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)).

Id. (citing State v. Garc ia–Cantu , 253 S.W .3d 236, 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); 7

Gutierrez v. State , 221 S.W .3d 680, 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)).

Id. (citing Garcia–Cantu , 253 S.W .3d at 241). 8Weaver Pag e 6

d e n o v o

. “ W e w i l l s u s t a i n t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s r u l i n g i f t h a t r u l i n g i s ‘ r e a s o n a b l y s u p p o r t e d b y

9

t h e r e c o r d a n d i s c o r r e c t o n a n y t h e o r y o f l a w a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c a s e

. ’ ” 1 0

B

. T h e S c o p e o f C o n s e n t U

n d e r t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t

.

T h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t p r o t e c t s i n d i v i d u a l s a g a i n s t u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s a n d

s e i z u r e s

. R e a s o n a b l e n e s s i s t h e t o u c h s t o n e o f t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t

. A n d

, “ e x c e p t i n

1 1 1 2

c e r t a i n c a r e f

u l l y d e f i n e d c l a s s e s o f c a s e s

, a s e a r c h o f p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t p r o p e r c o n s e n t

i s ‘ u n r e a s o n a b l e ’ u n l e s s i t h a s b e e n a u t h o r i z e d b y a v a l i d s e a r c h w a r r a n t

. ” T h e S u p r e m e 1 3

C o u r t h a s “ l o n g a p p r o v e d c o n s e n s u a l s e a r c h e s b e c a u s e i t i s n o d o u b t r e a s o n a b l e f o r t h e

p o l i c e t o c o n d u c t a s e a r c h o n c e t h e y h a v e b e e n p e r m i t t e d t o d o s o

. ” A l t h o u g h c o n s e n t m u s t 1 4

b e p o s i t i v e

, i t m a y b e g i v e n o r a l l y o r b y a c t i o n

, o r i t m a y b e s h o w n b y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l

e v i d e n c e

. T h e v a l i d i t y o f a n a l l e g e d c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h i s a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t t o b e d e t e r m i n e d 1 5

Valtierra v. State , 310 S.W .3d 442, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); W iede v . State , 214 9

S.W .3d 17, 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

Valtierra , 310 S.W .3d at 447-48 (quoting State v. Dixon , 206 S.W .3d 587, 590 (Tex. 1 0

Crim. App. 2006)).

U.S. C O N S T

. amend. I V. 1 1

Florida v. Jimeno , 500 U.S. 248, 250 (1991). 1 2

Camara v. Municipal Court , 387 U.S. 523, 528-29 (1967). 1 3

Jimeno , 500 U.S. at 250-51. 1 4

Valtierra , 310 S.W .3d at 448; Johnson v. State , 226 S.W .3d 439, 446 n.27 (Tex. Crim. 1 5

App. 2007); Gallups v. State , 151 S.W .3d 196, 201 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).Weaver Pag e 7

f r o m t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

. U n d e r T e x a s l a w

, t h e S t a t e m u s t p r o v e v o l u n t a r y 1 6

c o n s e n t b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e

. 1 7

T h e s c o p e o f a s e a r c h i s u s u a l l y d e f i n e d b y i t s e x p r e s s e d o b j e c t

. A p e r s o n i s f

r e e 1 8

t o l i m i t t h e s c o p e o f t h e c o n s e n t t h a t h e g i v e s

. I f p o l i c e r e l y o n c o n s e n t a s t h e b a s i s f o r a 1 9

w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h

, “ t h e y h a v e n o m o r e a u t h o r i t y t h a n t h e y h a v e a p p a r e n t l y b e e n g i v e n b y t h e

c o n s e n t

. ” I t i s t h e r e f

o r e “ i m p o r t a n t t o t a k e a c c o u n t o f a n y e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d l i m i t a t i o n s o r 2 0

q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a t t e n d i n g t h a t c o n s e n t w h i c h e s t a b l i s h t h e p e r m i s s i b l e s c o p e o f t h e s e a r c h i n

t e r m s o f s u c h m a t t e r s a s t i m e

, d u r a t i o n

, a r e a

, o r i n t e n s i t y

. ” O n t h e o t h e r h a n d

, a p e r s o n ’ s 2 1

s i l e n c e i n t h e f

a c e o f a n o f

f i c e r ’ s f u r t h e r a c t i o n s m a y i m p l y c o n s e n t t o t h a t f u r t h e r a c t i o n

. 2 2

T h e “ s t a n d a r d f

o r m e a s u r i n g t h e s c o p e o f a s u s p e c t ’ s c o n s e n t u n d e r t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t

Valtierra , 310 S.W .3d at 448; Ohio v. Robinette , 519 U.S. 33, 39-40 (1996); Gallups

, 1 6

151 S.W .3d at 200-01; Guev ara v. State , 97 S.W .3d 579, 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

Valtierra, 310 S.W .3d at 448; Reasor v. State , 12 S.W .3d 813, 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 7

2000); Mee ks v. State , 692 S.W .2d 504, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).

Jimeno , 500 U.S. at 251. 1 8

Id. at 252 (“ A suspect may of cour se delimit as he choose s the scope of the sea rch to 1 9

which he c onsents.”).

4 W A Y N E R. L A F A V E , S E A R C H A N D S E I Z U R E § 8.1© at 19 (4th ed. 2004)

. 2 0

Id. 2 1

Valtierra , 310 S.W .3d at 449. Acc ord United States v. Starr , 533 F.3d 985, 996 ( 8th 2 2

Cir. 2008) (“Star

r wa s prese nt during the offic ers’ full sear ch of his home, but re mained silent

and made no attempt to impede their e ffor ts or to express his concer n that they

wer e excee ding

the scope of his consent. Give n these fa cts, we c onclude that a rea sonable pe rson would have

believed tha t the office rs had a uthority to conduct a f

ull searc h of Starr’ s home including his

closet and a

roll of film; theref

ore, this war

rantless sea

rch did not violate the F ourth Amendment

beca use it was author ized by

Starr’s c onsent.”).Weaver Pag e 8

i s t h a t o f ‘ o b

j e c t i v e ’ r e a s o n a b l e n e s s

– w h a t w o u l d t h e t y p i c a l r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n h a v e

u n d e r s t o o d b y t h e e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n t h e o f f i c e r a n d t h e s u s p e c t ? ” T h e r e f o r e

, a c o u r t 2 3

r e v i e w i n g t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f a p a r t i c u l a r p o l i c e

- c i t i z e n i n t e r a c t i o n d o e s s o

w i t h o u t r e g a r d f

o r t h e s u b

j e c t i v e t h o u g h t s o r i n t e n t s o f e i t h e r t h e o f f i c e r o r t h e c i t i z e n

. 2 4

S t i l l

, i n T e x a s

, t h e “ c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g ” b u r d e n “ r e q u i r e s t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o s h o w t h e

c o n s e n t g i v e n w a s p o s i t i v e a n d u n e q u i v o c a l a n d t h e r e m u s t n o t b e d u r e s s o r c o e r c i o n

, a c t u a l

o r i m p l i e d

. ” 2 5

C

. B u s i n e s s a n d C o m m e r c i a l P r e m i s e s a r e P r o t e c t e d A r e a s

.

T h e o c c u p a n t o f a b u s i n e s s e s t a b l i s h m e n t e n j o y s t h e s a m e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o b e

f r e e f r o m u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s a s d o e s t h e o c c u p a n t o f a p r i v a t e r e s i d e n c e

. B u t “ b u s i n e s s 2 6

a n d c o m m e r c i a l p r e m i s e s a r e n o t a s p r i v a t e a s r e s i d e n t i a l p r e m i s e s

, ” a n d “ c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e r e

a r e v a r i o u s p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s w h i c h m a y b e d i r e c t e d a t s u c h p r e m i s e s w i t h o u t

t h e p o l i c e c o n d u c t c o n s t i t u t i n g a F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t s e a r c h

. ” P o l i c e

, a l t h o u g h m o t i v a t e d 2 7

Florida v. Jimeno , 500 U.S. at 251. 2 3

Mee kins v. State , 340 S.W .3d 454, 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Maryland v. 2 4

Macon , 472 U.S. 463, 470-71 (1985); Scott v. United States , 436 U.S. 128, 136 (1978)).

Mee ks v. State , 692 S.W .2d 504, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). 2 5

See v . Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 543 (1967) (“ The businessman, like the oc cupant of a 2 6

residenc e, has a

constitutional right to g o about his business free from unre asonable officia l

entries upon his private commerc ial proper ty .”); Oliver v . United States , 466 U.S. 170, 178 n.8

(1984) ( “The Four

th Amendment’s prote ction of off ices a nd commerc ial buildings, in which

there may be leg itimate expectations of privac y , is based upon socie tal expectations that have

deep r oots in the history

of the Ame ndment.”).

1 L A F A V E

, supra note 20, § 2.4(b) a t 627. 2 7Weaver Pag e 9

b y a n i n v e s t i g a t i v e p u r p o s e

, a r e a s f r e e a s t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c t o e n t e r p r e m i s e s “ o p e n t o t h e

p u b l i c

, ” w h e n t h e y a r e o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c

. O f f i c e r s a r e t h e n e n t i t l e d t o n o t e o b j e c t s i n p l a i n 2 8

v i e w

, o r e x a m i n e m e r c h a n d i s e a s a c u s t o m e r w o u l d

. F o r “ a c t i o n s n o t t o c o n s t i t u t e a

2 9 3 0

F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t s e a r c h

, t h e o f f i c e r m u s t r e m a i n i n t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e p r e m i s e s w h i c h i s

o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c

. ” 3 1

I I I

.

T h e S P A a s s e r t s t h a t t h e m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s w a s g r a n t e d b a s e d o n i n c o r r e c t

c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w r a t h e r t h a n a n y f a c t

- f i n d i n g s t h a t w e r e u n f

a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e

. T h e s e

c o n c l u s i o n s w e r e i n c o r r e c t

, a r g u e s t h e S P A

, b e c a u s e 1 ) t h e o f f i c e r s d i d n o t n e e d p e r m i s s i o n

t o b e i n “ t h e p a r k i n g l o t ” w h e n t h e y i n i t i a t e d t h e d o g s n i f f ; 2 ) n e i t h e r M r

. W e a v e r n o r t h e

v a n w e r e s e i z e d i n o r d e r t o c o n d u c t t h e d o g s n i f f ; 3 ) t h e d o g s n i f

f w a s n o t a s e a r c h ; a n d 4 )

t h e d o g ’ s p o s i t i v e a l e r t j u s t i f i e d t h e s e a r c h

. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s m a d e i t c l e a r t h a t a d o g

Maryland v. M

acon , 472 U.S. 463, 470 (1985). 2 8

United States v. Morton , 17 F.3d 911, 913 ( 6th Cir. 1994) (discover y and seizure of

the 2 9

g un did not violate the Four th Amendment; testimony fairly established that the a

uto shop was

open to the public for

business, so the office rs lawf ully enter ed the shop, a

nd, when the de fenda

nt

stood up, an offic er sa

w, in plain view, a g

un in defe ndant’s bac k pocket)

.

Lo-Ji Sales, Inc . v. New Y ork , 442 U.S. 319, 329 (1979) (F ourth Amendment violated 3 0

by swee ping se arc h of “a dult” bookstore; offic ers view ed films “without the pay ment a member

of the public would be require d to make,” a nd viewed ma g azines and books “not . . . as a

customer would or dinarily see the m” by

removing cellophane wra ppers)

.

1 L A F A V E

, supra note 20 § 2.4(b) a t 630. Courts have held that sea rche s of private 3 1

office s, airline bag g ag e rooms, employ ee br eak r ooms, employ ee loc ker r ooms, private dre ssing

rooms of ente rtainer s, etc. a re not sustainable on the theory of “store premises ope n to the

public.” Id. (collec ting c ases)

.Weaver Pag e 10

s n i f f i s n o t a s e a r c h

, a n d i t i s g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d t h a t a p o s i t i v e a l e r t b y a c e r t i f i e d d r u g d o g 3 2

i s u s u a l l y e n o u g h

, b y i t s e l f

, t o g i v e o f

f i c e r s p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o s e a r c h

. W e a g r e e w i t h t h e 3 3

S P A t h a t n e i t h e r M r

. W e a v e r n o r t h e v a n w e r e s e i z e d i n o r d e r t o c o n d u c t t h e d o g s n i f f

.

B u t

, a s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w

, t h e S P A a s s u m e s a f a c t t h a t i s n o t i n e v i d e n c e : t h a t t h e v a n

w a s p a r k e d i n a p a r k i n g l o t “ o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c

. ” V i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t m o s t 3 4

f a v o r a b l e t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s r u l i n g

, t h i s a r e a w a s n o t p a r t o f t h e “ p u b l i c ” a r e a o f h i s w e l d i n g

s h o p

. T h e r e f

o r e

, t h e o f

f i c e r s n e e d e d p e r m i s s i o n t o b e w h e r e t h e y w e r e w h e n t h e y i n i t i a t e d

t h e d o g s n i f

f

, b u t t h e y d i d n o t h a v e i t

. 3 5

Illinois v. Caball es , 543 U.S. 405, 409 (2005) (holding that a ca nine sniff of a

n 3 2

automobile need not be justified by rea sonable a

rticulable suspicion of dr

ug activity

); City of

Indianapolis v. Edmond , 531 U.S. 32, 40 (2000) (r ecog nizi ng that a ca nine sniff of a

n automobile

is not a sear ch); United States v. Place , 462 U.S. 696, 706-07 (1983) ( holding that a canine sniff

of lug g ag e does not c onstitut e a se arc h). These holdings a re ba sed on the leg al theory that a

canine sniff by

a we ll-trained na

rcotics- detec tion dog is not Four th Amendment sea

rch be cause it

reve als no information other tha n the location of a

substance tha t no individual has a leg itimate

privac y interest in. They

are all premised, howe ver, upon a finding that the offic er–a nd there fore

the dog –have a rig ht to be standing wher e they are at the time of the c anine sniff

.

United States v. Parada , 577 F.3d 1275, 1282 ( 10th Cir. 2009). 3 3

I t has bee n sug g ested that this Court should remand this case to the trial judg e to enter a 3 4

specific finding on a disputed fa ct that is disposit ive to the appe al. See State v . Elias , 339

S.W .3d 667, 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). But her e, unlike the situation in Elias , there is no

disputed fac t issue. There is no evidence in this record tha t the van bac ked into the workshop

bay door wa s located in a

"pa rking lot" or a

n are a that wa s open to the g ener al public. The State

argues that the van wa s located in a public parking

lot, but there is no evidenc e fr om any witness

in the rec ord that supports that ar g ument. We need not re mand this case f or the trial judg e to

enter a finding on a fa ct that, base d on the re cord, is not in dispute.

W eave r , 2010 Tex. App. L EXI S 7425, at *9 (“B eca use the trial judg e could ha ve 3 5

deter mined that Weaver ’s conse nt to searc h for ‘ Be ar’ had ende d, the trial cour t could rea sonably

find that the off

icer s, without establishing proba ble ca use, we re not e ntitled to search f or other

purposes unre lated to that of their initial sea rch.” ).Weaver Pag e 11

A

. A f f o r d i n g a p p e l l e e t h e “ s t r o n g e s t l e g i t i m a t e v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e

, ” t h e v a n w a s n o t

p a r k e d i n a p a r k i n g l o t o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c

.

T h e S P A ’ s p o s i t i o n i s a p p a r e n t i n t h e w a y i t f r a m e d t h e i s s u e f

o r r e v i e w : “ M a y

p o l i c e c o n d u c t a d o g s n i f f o f t h e e x t e r i o r o f a n u n o c c u p i e d v e h i c l e i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t o f a

b u s i n e s s w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e o w n e r o f t h e b u s i n e s s ? ” S u r e l y t h e a n s w e r t o t h a t

q u e s t i o n

, o n i t s f

a c e

, i s y e s

. A p u b l i c p a r k i n g l o t i s p u b l i c r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r a n e a r b y

b u s i n e s s i s o p e n o r n o t

.

I n I l l i n o i s v

. C a b a l l e s

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e u s e o f a n a r c o t i c s

- d e t e c t i o n 3 6

d o g t o s n i f

f a r o u n d t h e e x t e r i o r o f a m o t o r i s t ’ s v e h i c l e d u r i n g a l a w f u l t r a f f i c s t o p d i d n o t

v i o l a t e t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t b e c a u s e i t r e v e a l e d n o i n f o r m a t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h e l o c a t i o n o f

a s u b s t a n c e t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l h a d n o r i g h t t o p o s s e s s

. I n k e e p i n g w i t h J u s t i c e G i n s b u r g ’ s 3 7

p r o p h e c y t h a t C a b a l l e s “ c l e a r s t h e w a y f o r s u s p i c i o n l e s s

, d o g

- a c c o m p a n i e d d r u g s w e e p s o f

p a r k e d c a r s a l o n g s i d e w a l k s a n d i n p a r k i n g l o t s

, ” i t h a s d o n e j u s t t h a t

. F e d e r a l a n d s t a t e 3 8

c o u r t s a l i k e h a v e u s e d C a b a l l e s t o u p h o l d d o g s n i f f s i n t h e p u b l i c p a r k i n g l o t s o f g a s s t a t i o n s

,

h o t e l s

, r e s t a u r a n t s

, a n d h i g h s c h o o l s

. B u t i n C a b a l l e s

, J u s t i c e S t e v e n s e m p h a s i z e d t h a t t h e 3 9

543 U.S. 405 (2005). 3 6

Id. at 409. 3 7

Id. at 422 (Ginsburg , J ., dissenting) (“Toda y ’s dec ision . . . clears the way for 3 8

suspicionless, dog- acc ompanied drug swee ps of par ked ca rs along sidewalks and in pa rking

lots.”).

United States v. Dy son , 639 F.3d 230- 33 (6th Cir. 2011) (dog sniff of a n unoccupie d, 3 9

parke d Maxi ma at g as station “does not in itself re quire re asonable suspicion”); United States v.

Perez , 440 F.3d 363 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (dog sniff of unoc cupied Ta hoe, which sa t in the parking lot

of the hotel a

nd was not stopped, deta ined or moved, w as not a sea rch or seizure; no rea sonableWeaver Pag e 12

p o l i c e c a n n o t p r o l o n g a t r a f f i c s t o p b e y o n d t h e t i m e r e a s o n a b l y r e q u i r e d t o a c c o m p l i s h i t s

p u r p o s e s i m p l y t o g i v e t h e m t i m e t o b r i n g i n a d r u g d o g

. A s o u r c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s h a v e 4 0

r e c o g n i z e d

, o f

f i c e r s i n i t i a t i n g a d o g s n i f f m u s t h a v e t h e r i g h t t o b e w h e r e t h e y a r e a t t h e t i m e

t h e y i n i t i a t e a d o g s n i f

f

. 4 1

I t i s t h e C a b a l l e s l i n e o f c a s e s t h a t t h e S P A r e l i e s o n h e r e

. T h e p r o b l e m i n t h i s c a s e

i s t h a t n o o n e

, e x c e p t t h e p r o s e c u t o r

, c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e p l a c e t h e v a n w a s p a r k e d a s a

suspicion is required w hen using a drug -sniffing dog ); United States v. Engles , 481 F.3d 1243,

1245 (10th Cir. 2007) (dog sniff of the e x terior of a vehic le par

ked in a r estaura

nt parking lot

does not requir e re asonable suspicion beca use it is not a Fourth Ame ndment intrusion); State v.

Hobbs , 933 N.E.2d 1281, 1286-87 ( I nd. 2010) (dog sniff of c ar in Pizz a Hut lot, conducte d under

circ umstances in which H obbs was not unconstitutionally seized, not Fourth Amendme nt

violation); Dowty v. State , 210 S.W .3d 850, 854-55 (Ar k. 2005) (dog sniff of Gr and Am and

Suburban at a

Western Siz zli n’ par

king lot not Four

th Amendment sea

rch) ; Mye rs v. State , 839

N.E.2d 1154, 1159 (I nd. 2005) (hig h-school-student de fenda nt’s car was subjec t to the narc otics

dog -sniff test a

bsent rea sonable pa

rticularized suspicion, as it was pa rked a nd unoccupie d and the

defe ndant was in school)

.

Caballes , 543 U.S. 407-08 (“A seizure that is justified solely by the intere st in iss uing a 4 0

war ning ticke t to the driver c an bec ome unlawf ul if it is prolonged be y ond the time rea sonably

require d to complete that mission. I n an ea rlier c ase involving a dog sniff that occ urre d during an

unrea sonably

prolong ed tra ffic stop, the I llinois Supreme Court held that use of the dog and the

subsequent discove ry

of contra band we re the product of a n unconstitutional seiz ure. We may

assume that a similar r esult would be wa rra nted in this case if the dog sniff had be en conduc ted

while re spondent was be ing unla wfully detained.” ) (c itation omit ted).

See B ranch v. State , 335 S.W .3d 893, 901(Tex. App.—Austin 2011, no pet.) (“ Given 4 1

the evidenc e re g arding

the initial traffic stop and the ar rival of the dr

ug -dete ction dog , all of

which shows that the dog arr ived within eig ht minutes of the traff ic stop and bef

ore Wing field

finished conduc ting nor

mal proce dures f

or a tra ffic stop, we conclude that the re cord suppor ts an

implied finding by

the trial cour

t that the time it took for the dog to arrive did not prolong the

initial st op bey ond the time rea sonably require d to complete the mission of the stop.”); Johnson

v. State , 323 S.W .3d 561, 562-63 (Te x . App.—Eastland 2010, pe t. ref’ d) (F ourth Amendment

does not requir es re asonable suspicion to just ify using a drug -dete ction dog to sniff a ve hicle

during a leg itimate traff

ic stop; while one off

icer was running a che ck on appe llant's dr iver’s

license, a nother off icer had his drug -dete ction dog conduct a n open-a ir sear ch ar ound the vehicle

, and the dog aler

ted on the drive r’s door)

.Weaver Pag e 13

“ p a r k i n g l o t

. ” L t

. L o w r i e s a i d t h a t t h e t r u c k w a s p a r k e d i n a “ s a l l [ y ] p o r t

. ”

Q

. W h e r e w a s t h e v a n p a r k e d ?

A

. I t w a s t h e

– I g u e s s i t w o u l d b e t h e n o r t h s i d e o f t h e b u i l d i n g b a c k u p t o t h e b i g s a l l [ y ]

p o r t o n t h e b u i l d i n g

. 4 2

Q

. I s i t

, l i k e

, a p a r k i n g l o t o r a p a r k i n g a r e a ?

A

. I t ’ s a b i g

, b a y d o o r

. I g u e s s y o u w o u l d s a y i t ’ s k i n d o f l i k e a l o a d i n g / u n l o a d i n g f o r

t h e b u s i n e s s a r e a

.

T h e S t a t e a r g u e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t “ T h e v e h i c l e

. . . w a s l o c a t e d o n a p a r k i n g l o t

t h a t w a s i n

– i n a b u s i n e s s t h a t w a s o p e n f o r p u b l i c u s e o r o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c

. S o t h e f a c t t h a t

t h e o f f i c e r s d e c i d e d t o r u n t h e c a n i n e

, e v e n t h o u g h m a y b e t h e y d i d n ’ t s e e o r s m e l l s o m e t h i n g

,

t h e y d i d n ’ t h a v e t o h a v e a n y t y p e o f r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t o d o t h a t

. ” T h e S P A a r g u e s

s i m i l a r l y : “ W h i l e o n t h e p r e m i s e s o f a b u s i n e s s o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c

, p o l i c e a r e p e r m i t t e d t o

c o n d u c t a d o g s n i f

f o f v e h i c l e s p a r k e d i n t h e p a r k i n g a r e a

. . . . T h e u n o c c u p i e d v a n w a s

p a r k e d i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t [

. ] ” 4 3

B u t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t f i n d t h a t t h e v a n w a s p a r k e d i n a p u b l i c p a r k i n g l o t

. R a t h e r

,

i t f o u n d t h e v a n “ w a s l o c a t e d b e s i d e t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s s h o p o n p r o p e r t y o w n e d b y t h e

Sally port may have be en an unf

ortunate c hoice of

words. I t literally

means “ 1. in 4 2

fortifica tion, a postern g ate, or a passa g e under

g round fr om the inner to the outer works, to

aff ord fr ee e g ress to troops in making a sally , closed by massive g ates whe n not in use. 2. a larg e

port on ea ch quar

ter of a fire ship, for

the esc ape of

the men into boats when the train is fired;

also, a lar g e port in an ironc lad.” W E B S T E R ’ S N E W T W E N T I E T H C E N T U R Y D I C T I O N A R Y

U N A B R I D G E D 1599 (2nd ed.1983) . What the office r undoubtedly meant to say

was that the va

n

was ba cked into a loa ding- dock bay at the re ar of

the welding workshop.

SPA’s Brief

at 4, 7. 4 3Weaver Pag e 14

d e f e n d a n t

. ” T h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i s a f f o r d e d t h e s t r o n g e s t l e g i t i m a t e v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e

a n d a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f

e r e n c e s t h a t m a y b e d r a w n f r o m t h a t e v i d e n c e

. T h e f a c t s h e r e s u p p o r t

t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s i m p l i c i t f i n d i n g t h a t t h e v a n w a s n o t p a r k e d o n a n y p a r t o f t h e b u s i n e s s

p r e m i s e s o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c o r i n a p u b l i c “ p a r k i n g l o t

. ” F r o m t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s r e c o r d

, 4 4

t h e t r i a l j u d g e c o u l d h a v e f o u n d o t h e r w i s e

, b u t h e d i d n o t d o s o

. W e a r e o b l i g e d t o g i v e

a l m o s t t o t a l d e f

e r e n c e t o h i s i m p l i e d f

a c t u a l f i n d i n g s

. T h e r e f

o r e

, u n l e s s t h e o f

f i c e r s h a d 4 5

M r

. W e a v e r ’ s c o n s e n t t o b e s t a n d i n g b e s i d e t h e v a n a t t h e l o a d i n g d o c k

, t h e y w e r e n o l o n g e r

e n t i t l e d t o b e i n t h e n o n

- p u b l i c p o r t i o n o f t h e w e l d i n g w o r k s h o p a t t h e t i m e t h e y c o n d u c t e d

t h e d o g s n i f

f

. 4 6

The re cord indica tes that the par king lot for

the welding shop was at the f ront of the 4 4

shop where “B ear ’s” c ar w as par ked. F urthermor e, it is unlikely that Mr. Weaver

would be

storing his “ broke dow n” vehic les, boat, and othe r items in a public par king lot, and L t. L owrie

testified that those items wer e out in “the ba ck” a rea with the van. I t is also unlikely that the

g ener al public would have acc ess to the workshop a rea and loading dock of a

welding shop as

welding opera tions invol ve both sig nificant fir e hazar ds and risks due to the use and movement

of hea vy equipment.

State v. W

oodard , 341 S.W .3d 404, 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). 4 5

Cf. Buchanan v. State , 129 S.W .3d 767, 774 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, pet. re f’d)

. 4 6

I n that case , the trial cour t denied a motion to suppress, but made no f indings. The court of

appea ls, viewing the fa cts in the light most favor able to the pr evailing party as it was re quired to

do, found that appe llant had no leg itimate expectation of privac y in the dirt drivewa

y entra nce to

a business run be hind his house:

The time of da

y , the pre sence of no one outside the f ence with whom the office rs

could spea k, the larg e open g ate, the pr esenc e of a well-de fined dirt drive way

leading throug h the g ate to a building behind the empty house, appe llant’s

opera tion (behind the g ate) of a business involving vehicles ow ned by third

parties, the r easona

ble infer ence not only

that third parties pa ssed throug h the

g ates to obtain appe llant’s mecha nical ser vices but also that they

wer e author ized

to do so during nor

mal business hours, the lac k of any evidenc e illustrating tha t

only appellant or

cer tain desig nated individuals could drive the ir ca rs throug h theWeaver Pag e 15

B

. A f f o r d i n g M

r

. W e a v e r t h e “ s t r o n g e s t l e g i t i m a t e v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e

, ” t h e o

f f i c e r s

d i d n o t h a v e c o n t i n u e d c o n s e n t t o b e o n t h e p r e m i s e s a t t h e t i m e t h e y r a n t h e d o g

s n i f f

.

T h e S P A a s s e r t s t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s

– w h o h a d l a w f

u l l y e n t e r e d t h e p r e m i s e s

– w e r e “ u n d e r

n o o b l i g a t i o n t o l e a v e u n l e s s a s k e d ” a n d t h a t t h e r e “ w a s n o e v i d e n c e o r f a c t f i n d i n g t h a t t h e

o f f i c e r s w e r e e v e r a s k e d t o s t o p t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o r l e a v e t h e p r e m i s e s

. ” B u t t h e r e l e v a n t 4 7

q u e s t i o n h e r e i s a s f

o l l o w s : W h a t w o u l d t h e t y p i c a l r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n h a v e u n d e r s t o o d b y

t h e e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n t h e o f f i c e r s a n d M r

. W e a v e r ? M r

. W e a v e r g a v e o r a l c o n s e n t t o 4 8

s e a r c h h i s w e l d i n g s h o p f o r “ B e a r

, ” v o l u n t a r i l y s h o w e d t h e o f f i c e r s h i s r e g i s t e r e d g u n s

, a n d 4 9

t h e n u n e q u i v o c a l l y r e f

u s e d t o c o n s e n t t o a s e a r c h o f t h e v a n b a c k e d u p i n t h e l o a d i n g d o c k

o f h i s s h o p

.

W e r e c e n t l y a d d r e s s e d t h e s c o p e o f a c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h u n d e r t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t

g ate, the pr esenc e of a

third party

actua lly workingon his vehicle inside the

fenc ed lot, and the of

fice rs conf

ining themse lves to the well-de fined dirt drive way

are indicia upon which a

trial court c ould rea sonably find that appe llant had no

leg itimate expectation of privac y in the dirt drivewa

y behind the fe nce a

nd that

which could be perc eived f rom it. Thus, no searc h occur red w hen the of

fice rs

passed throug h the g ate while utilizing that path and sme lled the ether . Nor c an

we sa y that the trial cour

t abused its discretion in re fusing to find that the entry

violated appe llant’s constitutional rights.

Id. at 774.

SPA’s Brief

at 7. 4 7

Florida v. Jimeno , 500 U.S. 248, 251(1991). 4 8

See State v . Bagby , 119 S.W .3d 446, 450 (Tex. App.—Ty ler 2003, no pe t.) (off icer ’s 4 9

entry into appellee’ s shed was e x pressly limit ed in scope by

appellee to office r’s inspec tion of the

firea rms to determine if the y

had bee n rec ently

discharg ed; continuation of sea rch of shed af ter

inspection was f

inished–resulting in discovery of methamphe tamine–violated scope of conse nt ).Weaver Pag e 16

i n V a l t i e r r a v

. S t a t e

. T h e r e

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a g r e e d t h a t H e r i b e r t o 5 0

V a l t i e r r a c o n s e n t e d t o h a v e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s e n t e r h i s a p a r t m e n t t o t a l k t o E r i c a

, a 1 3

- y e a r

- o l d

r u n a w a y

. T h e q u e s t i o n b e f o r e u s w a s w h e t h e r H e r i b e r t o ’ s c o n s e n t e x t e n d e d t o t h e o f f i c e r ’ s

a c t o f w a l k i n g d o w n t h e o p e n h a l l w a y t o k n o c k o n t h e b a t h r o o m d o o r w h e r e E r i c a w a s s a i d

t o b e t a k i n g a s h o w e r

. W e h e l d t h a t i t w a s o b j e c t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e f

o r t h e o f f i c e r t o c o n c l u d e

t h a t H e r i b e r t o ’ s g e n e r a l c o n s e n t t o c o m e i n s i d e t h e a p a r t m e n t t o t a l k t o E r i c a i n c l u d e d

c o n s e n t t o w a l k d o w n t h e o p e n h a l l w a y t o k n o c k o n t h e b a t h r o o m d o o r

. T h u s

, t h e o f f i c e r 5 1

w a s l a w f u l l y p r e s e n t i n t h e h a l l w a y w h e n h e o b s e r v e d

, t h r o u g h a n o p e n b e d r o o m d o o r

, t w o

m e n m a k i n g f

u r t i v e g e s t u r e s a n d t h r o w i n g i t e m s u n d e r t h e b e d

. 5 2

T h i s c a s e i s l i k e V

a l t i e r r a i n t h a t t h e o f

f i c e r s h e r e o b t a i n e d o r a l c o n s e n t t o e n t e r t h e

p r e m i s e s t o l o o k f

o r a s p e c i f

i c i n d i v i d u a l

. T h i s c a s e i s a l s o u n l i k e V a l t i e r r a

, b e c a u s e h e r e

t h e o f f i c e r s h a d f

i n i s h e d l o o k i n g f

o r t h e s p e c i f

i c i n d i v i d u a l a n d h a d a c h i e v e d t h e o s t e n s i b l e

p u r p o s e o f t h e i r e n t r y

. A n d h e r e

, u n l i k e i n V a l t i e r r a

, M r

. W e a v e r u n e q u i v o c a l l y s a i d “ N o

, ”

t o a f u r t h e r s e a r c h o f h i s v a n

.

T h e l e g a l q u e s t i o n i s

, w h a t w o u l d “ t h e t y p i c a l r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n h a v e u n d e r s t o o d b y

t h e e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n t h e o f f i c e r a n d t h e s u s p e c t ? ” W e t h i n k t h a t i t w a s o b j e c t i v e l y

u n r e a s o n a b l e f

o r t h e o f f i c e r s t o c o n c l u d e t h a t M r

. W e a v e r ’ s a c t o f o b j e c t i n g t o t h e v a n s e a r c h

310 S.W .3d 442, 451-52 (Te x . Crim. App. 2010). 5 0

Id. 5 1

Id. 5 2Weaver Pag e 17

i n d i c a t e d

, b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e

, h i s c o n s e n t f o r t h e o f f i c e r s t o r e m a i n s t a n d i n g

b e s i d e h i s v a n w h i l e o n e o f f i c e r w e n t b a c k o u t t o t h e p a t r o l c a r a n d r e t r i e v e d a d r u g d o g t o

r u n a r o u n d h i s v a n

. A t y p i c a l r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n w o u l d h a v e u n d e r s t o o d

– f r o m M r

. 5 3

W e a v e r ’ s r e f

u s a l o f c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h t h e v a n

– t h a t h e h a d h a d e n o u g h

. I t w o u l d b e

u n r e a s o n a b l e f

o r t h a t t y p i c a l p e r s o n

, h a v i n g h e a r d a n u n e q u i v o c a l “ N o

, ” t o t h i n k t h a t h e h a d

“ p o s i t i v e a n d u n e q u i v o c a l ” c o n s e n t

, n o t o n l y t o r e m a i n s t a n d i n g b e s i d e t h e v a n o n t h e n o n

p u b l i c p r e m i s e s

, b u t a l s o t o r e t r i e v e y e t a n o t h e r u n w e l c o m e i n t r u d e r

. T h e r e i s c e r t a i n l y n o

i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t M r

. W e a v e r c o n s e n t e d f o r t h e o f f i c e r s t o b r i n g t h e d r u g d o g f r o m

t h e p a t r o l c a r t o t h e v a n p a r k e d a t h i s l o a d i n g d o c k

. F r o m t h e s e f a c t s

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e c o u l d

h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h f o r “ B e a r ” w a s l a w f

u l a t i t s i n c e p t i o n

, b u t t h a t i t

h a d b e e n c o m p l e t e d

. T h e o f f i c e r s h a d c o m p l e t e d t h e i r s t a t e d m i s s i o n

. T h u s

, w h e n M r

.

W e a v e r u n e q u i v o c a l l y s a i d “ N o ” t o a n y f u r t h e r s e a r c h o f h i s v a n

, t h e o f f i c e r s v i o l a t e d t h e

F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t b y r e m a i n i n g o n h i s p r i v a t e b u s i n e s s p r e m i s e s a n d b r i n g i n g i n a d r u g d o g

w i t h o u t l e g a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n

. T h e r e f o r e

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e c o u l d h a v e j u s t i f i a b l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t

t h e “ n o n c o n s e n s u a l ” u s e o f t h e d r u g d o g a n d t h e s u b s e q u e n t d i s c o v e r y o f c o n t r a b a n d w e r e

t h e p r o d u c t o f a n u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s e a r c h o n p r i v a t e p r e m i s e s

.

T h e r e c o r d

, v i e w e d i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s r u l i n g

, s u p p o r t s a n

Acc ord Baldwin v. State , 278 S.W .3d 367, 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“De puty Smit h 5 3

believed tha t appellant’s a nswer to a

question reg arding the location of his identifica tion

constituted permission to retrieve that identification. We find this belief to be objective ly

unreasonable . Appellant’s r esponse wa s simply an answ er to the of

fice r’s que stion (after

being

handcuf fed) and not a c onsent for the office r to sear ch his person.” ) (e mphasis added)

.Weaver Pag e 18

i m p l i c i t f a c t f i n d i n g t h a t t h e v a n w a s p a r k e d i n a p r o t e c t e d

, n o n

- p u b l i c a r e a o f t h e b u s i n e s s

p r e m i s e s r a t h e r t h a n i n a p a r k i n g l o t o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c

. A n d t h e r e c o r d a l s o s u p p o r t s t h e t r i a l

j u d g e ’ s l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s h a d w o r n o u t t h e i r w e l c o m e a n d l i n g e r e d b e y o n d

t h e s c o p e o f M r

. W e a v e r ’ s c o n s e n t b e f o r e t h e i n i t i a t i o n o f t h e d o g s n i f f

. W e r e c o g n i z e t h a t

t h i s c a s e i s a c l o s e c a l l

– b u t i t i s i n t h e “ c l o s e c a l l ” c a s e s t h a t t h e n e e d f o r g i v i n g d i s c r e t i o n

t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e a n d d e f e r r i n g t o h i s f

a c t u a l f i n d i n g s i s g r e a t e s t

, e s p e c i a l l y w h e n t h e S t a t e

m u s t p r o v e p o s i t i v e c o n s e n t b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e

. W e t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m t h e c o u r t

o f a p p e a l s ’ s j u d g m e n t t h a t u p h e l d t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s r u l i n g

.

D e l i v e r e d : S e p t e m b e r 2 8

, 2 0 1 1

P u b l i s h