REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed October 29, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01525-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

SINEENAS WONGSAMRIT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-10014

OPINION

Before Justices O'Neill, Lang-Miers, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers

Appellee Sineenas Wongsamrit1 is charged with engaging in organized criminal activity 

involving prostitution. In this interlocutory appeal the State of Texas challenges the trial court’s 

order granting Wongsamrit’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence. We reverse and remand. 

BACKGROUND

Wongsamrit was one of eight people arrested after the police obtained and executed 

warrants to search five apartments. Seven of the defendants, including Wongsamrit, filed 

separate pretrial motions to suppress evidence seized at one or more of the apartments. The trial 

court held a consolidated hearing and granted all of the defendants’ motions.2 

 1 Appellee’s surname is misspelled “Wongramrit” in the trial court’s order. According to the indictment and her appellee’s brief, appellee’s 

surname is spelled Wongsamrit.

2 The State appealed the trial court’s ruling in each case and we decide this appeal at the same time we decide the other cases: State v. 

Komviriyawut, case number 05-13-01526-CR; State v. Chevagunpirom, case number 05-13-01527-CR; State v. Benson, case number 05-13-
–2–

The Warrants

The warrants at issue in the hearing on the defendants’ motions to suppress authorized the 

search of five apartments for evidence of human trafficking, money laundering, and various 

prostitution-related offenses. Four of the apartments are in Addison, Texas: 15801 Artist Way 

#4119, and 3820 Vitruvian Way #234, #521, and #552. The fifth apartment is in Frisco, Texas: 

3198 Parkwood Boulevard #13053. The warrants were issued on February 12, 2013, and 

executed on February 13, 2013.3

The Probable-Cause Affidavits

The affidavits filed in support of the warrants were signed on February 12, 2013, by 

Sergeant K. McFarland, who at the time had 14 years of experience as a police officer. Except 

for the descriptions of the apartments the police were seeking to search, the affidavits are 

virtually identical. In his affidavits McFarland stated, “I have probable cause to believe Waralee 

Duarte, Josue Duarte, and Casey Jay Benson are operating a prostitution and human trafficking 

ring.” To support that statement McFarland attested to the following facts.

The Anonymous Tip

On January 22, 2012,4 members of the Farmers Branch police department gave 

McFarland and another Addison police officer a package they received from an unknown person. 

The package was addressed to the Farmers Branch police department and the return address read 

“Need Help.” Inside the package was a flash drive that the sender had named “NEED HELP.” 

 01528-CR; State v. Duarte, case number 05-13-01529-CR; State v. Duarte, case number 05-13-01530-CR; and State v. Ronmai, case number 05-

13-01531-CR.

3 The search warrants for the Addison apartments were issued by the same magistrate and the search warrant for the Frisco apartment was 

issued by a different magistrate.

4 Towards the outset of the hearing on the defendants’ motions to suppress, the State told the trial court that “there is a typo [in the affidavit] 

of 2012 instead of 2013” (according to McFarland and the subsequent police report), making it appear that the police waited over twelve months 

between the time they received the anonymous tip and the time they began their investigation. The State argued at the hearing that it was 

reasonable for the magistrates to deduce that the year stated in connection with the receipt of the anonymous tip was a typo. On appeal the State 

notes that because there was no other evidence presented at the hearing, “the facts had to be interpreted as they were stated literally in the 

affidavits.”
–3–

The flash drive contained an electronic file folder labeled “secret.” In that folder was a text file 

stating as follows:

I am one of the girl to need help.i come united because have agency provide her 

name **Waralee Duarte. 3820 vitruvian way.apt 552 ,addison TX 75001**and 

Casey jay benson 3198 Parkwood blvd. apt 13053 Frisco TX 75034** Them 

charge me $60,000 and force me to have sex a lot of guy and force me to do Ass 

and swallow sperm.i can’t said anything because them keep my passport and all 

of passport in safe box 

The message concluded with “please looking for,” along with a list of three websites and five 

telephone numbers. The flash drive also contained “several photos of young Asian females in 

varying states of undress,” approximately 17 “prostitution and erotic message ads,” ads from 

multiple “escort websites,” a screen shot of a cell phone map leading to 3820 Vitruvian Way, and 

a photocopy of Waralee Duarte’s driver’s license.

McFarland searched the websites listed on the flash drive and located ads “contain[ing] 

identical pictures to those located on the flash drive.” He also determined that the phone 

numbers listed on the flash drive matched the phone numbers on the ads. 

The Vitruvian Way Apartments

On February 5, 2013, McFarland and Special Agent Gregg Buchholz, a federal 

Homeland Security agent assigned to investigate human smuggling and trafficking, went to the 

Savoye apartment complex located at 3820 Vitruvian Way in Addison and spoke to the manager. 

The manager asked them if they “were inquiring about apartment #552 due to a prostitution 

ring.” Apartment #552 was leased to Waralee Duarte. According to the manager, in June 2012, 

an unidentified Chinese food delivery driver, a male, stated he was concerned for 

the welfare of the females in the apartment. The driver stated there was a 

prostitution ring in the apartment and the Dallas Police Department was aware of 

the ring. The driver just wanted to notify management.

The manager could not recall the name of the driver or where he worked. She explained that she 

did not call police because the driver said “DPD was aware of the prostitution.”
–4–

The manager also told McFarland and Buchholz that apartment #521 was leased to 

Benson, and that Benson and Waralee Duarte rented the apartment complex’s lounge in June 

2012 “for a ‘marriage ceremony’ between the two.” The resident services manager at the 

complex witnessed the ceremony and said that it was attended by “numerous young Asian 

females” who “seemed morose and almost nervous.” The manager told McFarland and 

Buchholz that apartment #234 was leased by Waralee Duarte’s “son,” Josue Duarte. But 

Buchholz later determined that Waralee and Josue Duarte are married. With respect to the 

apparent connection among the tenants in apartments #234, #521, and #552, McFarland attested,

Management at Savoye stated they have become increasing[ly] suspicious of 

apartments #234 (registered to Josue Duarte), #521 (registered to Casey Benson), 

and #552 (registered to Waralee Duarte). They stated the three residents appear in 

each apartment regularly. They find it odd that a married couple maintain 

separate apartments. They have noticed young Asian females in all the 

apartments. When apartment maintenance performs services at any of the three 

apartments, Josue Duarte follows maintenance personnel through the apartment, 

watching their every move. Maintenance stated they are not allowed in one 

bedroom in apartment #521. The door to the bedroom is always closed. [A 

maintenance worker] stated he has witnessed numerous males going to and 

leaving apartment #552. [He] stated on prior service calls he has seen a “rice 

screen” blocking view of the kitchen area. [He] stated he has seen an identical 

screen in #234. [He] stated he has seen packages addressed for apartment #552 in 

apartment # 234.

According to the manager, Waralee Duarte had “an apartment move out walk through” 

scheduled for the next day, February 6, because she was scheduled to move out at the end of the 

month. McFarland and Buchholz returned to the apartment complex on February 6 to inquire 

about the walkthrough. The manager said that she and a maintenance worker who “speaks and 

understands some of the Thai language” arrived at apartment #552 for the scheduled 

walkthrough. When they knocked they heard “three different Asian female voices” and one of 

them said “‘it’s the boss’ in Thai.” An Asian female “wearing a shear ‘tank dress’ with no 

undergarments” answered the door. She denied them access and “stated they were cooking,” but 
–5–

there was “no cooking odor.” They could not see inside the apartment “due to a room separating 

screen just past the entryway.”

The manager told McFarland that apartments #521 and #234 requested pest control 

scheduled for the following day, February 7. McFarland and three investigators went to the 

leasing office at Savoye on February 7 to talk to the pest control worker. The worker, who had 

“no prior knowledge of any suspected activity,” told McFarland that when he entered apartment 

#521 “[t]here was a young Asian female present wearing a robe.” No one was present in 

apartment #234.

The manager explained that the entryways to the Savoye apartments are locked. 

Residents can open them either by using their electronic key fob or remotely by telephone. At 

McFarland’s request the manager provided a log of telephone entries provided by apartments 

#552 and #521. The log showed 11 telephone entry accesses by Waralee Duarte to “Elev 4 Glass 

Door” (the glass door leading to the elevator between apartments #552 and #521) during the time 

period of November 1, 2012, until February 6, 2013.5 It also showed that Benson provided 

access to the building by telephone almost 400 times during that same time period, which the 

manager described as “a very large volume for phone access.” 

At 10:30 a.m. on February 7, while McFarland was at the leasing office to meet with the 

pest control worker, a maintenance worker entered and told McFarland that “he just saw a 

suspected ‘John’ standing outside elevator entry 4, on a cell phone.” The maintenance worker 

described the man. He watched the man walk from entry 4 to the parking garage. The man 

“appeared lost while speaking on the phone and hol[d]ing a white piece of paper that he 

continually referenced.” The man “then walked back to elevator entry 4 and was granted remote 

 5 The affidavit states the time period as being “from 11/01/12 until 2/06/12.” The parties agreed, and the trial court found, that the year next 

to the February date is a typo and that the correct year is 2013.
–6–

access.” The maintenance worker followed the man to the fifth floor and watched him “walk 

down the hall to #552.” One of the investigators went to the parking lot and saw a man matching 

the description provided by the maintenance worker enter the garage and begin looking for his 

car at 11:45 a.m. The maintenance worker was also in the garage and identified the man as the 

man he saw earlier. The investigator recorded the man’s license plate number and determined 

that it was registered to a man residing in Joshua, Texas. According to McFarland,

The male was in the apartment for an hour and fifteen minutes. This is a 

consistent time frame for prostitution clients. Appointments are generally booked 

at 30 minute to one hour time frames. The actions and time spent by the male 

were consistent with the suspected prostitution activity at apartment #552.

Access logs showed that Benson provided telephone access to elevator entry 4 on February 7 

three times between 10:32 a.m. and 10:53 a.m.

The Parkwood Boulevard Apartment

McFarland and Buchholz also went to the apartment complex located at 3198 Parkwood 

Boulevard in Frisco and spoke to a manager about apartment #13053, the other apartment 

identified on the flash drive. The manager said “there were rumors about a prostitution ring in 

this apartment involving Asian females.” The manager confirmed that Benson was listed as the 

resident. Benson’s lease application stated that he is a professional photographer. He paid his 

rent by money order and his proof of income was a “Paypal receipt.” The manager also said that 

Josue and Waralee Duarte came to view the apartments “as potential renters” in April 2010 and 

in September 2012 and said “[t]hey were referred by apartment ‘13053,’” which was leased to 

Benson on both dates.

McFarland and Buchholz also spoke to two maintenance workers who both said that 

when they have entered the apartment to complete work orders they have seen “several young 

Asian females” in the apartment and have “rarely seen” Benson. They described the apartment 

as sparsely furnished. The living room was set up “like a photography studio with backdrops 
–7–

and lighting.” One bedroom had a bed and was “full of computer equipment.” The other 

bedroom had “2 twin size beds, with no decorations or television in the room.” The maintenance 

workers looked at the ads from the flash drive and said the women identified in the ads as “Asian 

Michelle” and “Asian Katie” are “two of the females they have possibly seen in the apartment.”

The Artist Way Apartment 

McFarland also met with the manager of the apartment listed on Benson’s driver’s 

license, 15801 Artist Way #4119 in Addison. The manager said Benson “does maintain a 

residence at this address” but she “never sees Benson.” One of the leasing agents said that an 

Asian female who goes by the name “Rose” lives with Benson and is listed on the lease using a 

different name and her passport number for identification. When Rose comes to the office to pay 

rent or request service on the apartment she is accompanied by a white man in his sixties named 

Roy who interprets for her. Rose told management that she and Benson “are getting married 

soon.” Rose speaks “very little English,” and management suspects she is “a mail order bride.” 

The Hearing on the Defendants’ Motions to Suppress

During the consolidated hearing on the motions to suppress, counsel for the defendants 

primarily argued that the anonymous tip on the flash drive was stale by the time the warrants 

were issued, and the other facts stated in the affidavit were innocuous and as consistent with 

innocent activity as with criminal activity. In response, the State argued that under the totality of 

the circumstances the magistrates could have reasonably determined that there was a substantial 

basis for issuing the warrants.
–8–

The Trial Court’s Ruling 

The trial court issued written orders granting the motions to suppress, including 

Wongsamrit’s motion, which included its findings of fact and conclusions of law.6 With respect 

to Wongsamrit in particular, the trial court found that she had standing to challenge the search of 

3820 Vitruvian Way #521 because she was “found naked in a bedroom” in that apartment. With 

respect to the flash drive, the trial court stated,

• The information from the flash drive was over a year old at the time the 

warrant was signed and therefore was stale.

• [T]he information on the flash drive was undated and was from an 

unknown source.

• None of the information on the flash drive with regard to a person being 

forced to have sex was corroborated by any of the other information 

provided in the affidavit.

With respect to the Vitruvian Way apartments, the trial court stated,

• [T]he information from the unidentified Chinese food delivery driver 

obtained in June of 2012 concerning Apartment 552 at 3820 Vitruvian 

Way was both stale and uncorroborated and did not provide any support 

for the search of Apartment 521.

• [T]he information received from [the maintenance worker who stated he 

saw numerous males entering and exiting apartment #552] fails to provide 

any probable cause for the search of Apartment 521. [The maintenance 

worker] fails to provide any facts as to when he saw the persons coming 

and going, how many he saw, how long they stayed at the apartment, or 

any other information that might support a finding of probable cause or 

might corroborate any of the other information in the affidavit[.]

 6 After this Court received the clerk’s record we issued an order directing the trial court to prepare a written order memorializing its ruling 

on Wongsamrit’s motion to suppress and file a supplemental record containing the order. In response the trial court submitted a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing an order granting Wongsamrit’s motion that included the findings of fact and conclusions of law quoted in this opinion. 

The order was titled “TRIAL COURT’S FINDINGS OF FACT ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS” and concluded by stating, “IT 

IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is GRANTED[.]” Although the record does not reflect that the State 

requested findings and conclusions, and we did not abate this appeal so that the trial court could issue them, it appears that the trial court 

interpreted our request for a written order memorializing its ruling as a request by the State under State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2006), which requires the trial court to respond to a losing party’s request by making “findings of fact and conclusions of law [in 

connection with its ruling on a motion to suppress] adequate to provide an appellate court with a basis upon which to review the trial court’s 

application of the law to the facts.” Although the record does not reflect that the State requested them, the State cites to and quotes the findings 

and conclusions in its appellant’s brief.
–9–

• Management’s suspicions because residents of apartments 234, 521, and 

552 appear in each other[’]s apartments regularly do not make it likely that 

prostitution or human trafficking was being conducted in Apartment 521.

• The fact that Asian female guests at the June 24, 2012 wedding ceremony 

for Casey Benson and Waralee Duarte seemed “morose and almost 

nervous” to the resident services manager at Vitruvian Way does not make 

it likely that prostitution or human trafficking involving Asian females 

was occurring in Casey Benson’s apartment in February of 2013 or at any 

other time.

• Entry access logs at the Vitruvian Way complex showed Casey Benson 

activated telephone entry access numerous times between November 1, 

2012 and February 2, 2013. . . . [T]here is no factual support stated in the 

affidavit for the assumption that access was for customers of prostitution. 

• Although [a maintenance worker told McFarland] that he saw a suspected 

“John” standing by the elevator at the Vitruvian Way location on 

02/07/13, there are no facts provided as to why this person was a 

suspected “John” other than he was a male by the elevator leading to the 

fifth floor. [The maintenance worker] saw the person headed toward 

apartment 552 but did not see the person enter or leave any particular 

apartment.

• [The statement that the suspected] “John” was in the apartment for an hour 

and fifteen minutes [was] apparently based on when the officers saw the 

man in the parking garage and not on when they saw him enter or leave 

any apartment. The statement in the affidavit that this is consistent with 

suspected prostitution activity at Apartment 552 is not supported by any 

facts provided in the affidavit. This also fails to provide any support for 

the search of Apartment 521.

• The man providing pest control service to Apartment 521 on February 7, 

2013, reported that there was an Asian female in the apartment in her robe 

at 10:30 a.m. while he was performing his service. The Court finds that a 

single Asian female in the apartment in her robe at 10:30 in the morning 

does not provide any probable cause or support any suspicion that 

prostitution is being conducted in the apartment.

With respect to the Artist Way apartment, the trial court stated,

• According to the leasing agent, an Asian female lives with Benson at 

[15801 Artist Way #4119]. 

• The fact that Benson apparently lives with one Asian female at the Artist 

Way apartment while being married to another woman and maintaining a 

residence at another apartment on Vitruvian Way does not indicate that 

Benson is involved in human trafficking or prostitution of Asian females. 
–10–

• [T]he information concerning Apartment 4119 on Artist Way adds nothing 

to the possible probable cause for the search of Apartment 521 on 

Vitruvian Way.

With respect to the Parkwood Boulevard apartment the trial court stated,

• [I]nformation contained in the affidavit about rumors of prostitution at the 

apartment on Parkwood Blvd. fails to provide any corroboration of the 

information on the flash drive and fails to provide any facts that would 

support the search of Apartment 521 on Vitruvian Way.

And in conclusion, the trial court stated,

• The Court finds that the affidavit contains numerous suspicions, and 

conclusions based on those suspicions, but fails to contain facts to support 

those conclusions.

• The activities listed in the affidavit are as consistent with innocent 

behavior as with criminal activities.

• The Court finds that when taken as a whole and read in a common sense 

manner, the affidavit fails to provide facts that would support a finding of 

probable cause that trafficking of persons, compelling prostitution, 

aggravated promotion of prostitution, prostitution, or money laundering 

was being conducted in Apartment 521. 

• The Court further finds that the affidavit fails to provide any facts that any 

of the items listed in the warrant to be seized, including identification 

records, pay stubs, pay sheets, photographs, videos, cameras, thumb 

drives, computers, etc. would be found in Apartment 521.

ISSUE ON APPEAL

In one issue, the State argues that the trial court erred when it granted Wongsamrit’s 

motion to suppress.

APPLICABLE LAW AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Fourth Amendment establishes a constitutional preference that a search be conducted 

pursuant to a warrant. Jones v. State, 364 S.W.3d 854, 856–57 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (citing 

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983)); see U.S. CONST. amend. IV. Under Texas law, no 

search warrant may issue without a sworn affidavit that sets forth facts sufficient to establish 

probable cause. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.06 (West 2005), art. 18.01(b), (c) (West 
–11–

Supp. 2013); see TEX. CONST. art. I, § 9. Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the 

circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found at 

the specified location at the time the warrant is issued. State v. Duarte, 389 S.W.3d 349, 354 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Probable cause is a “flexible and non-demanding standard.” State v. 

McLain, 337 S.W.3d 268, 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 

55, 61 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). 

Because of the constitutional preference for searches to be conducted pursuant to a 

warrant, we apply a highly deferential standard of review to a magistrate’s probable-cause 

determination.

7 Bonds v. State, 403 S.W.3d 867, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); McLain, 337 

S.W.3d at 271 (“[T]he United States Supreme Court has provided incentives for lawenforcement officials to obtain warrants instead of conducting warrantless searches. One 

incentive is a less-strict standard for reviewing the propriety of a search conducted pursuant to a 

warrant.”). Under this highly deferential standard, we interpret the supporting affidavit in a 

commonsensical and realistic manner, and we defer to all reasonable inferences that the 

magistrate could have made. McLain, 337 S.W.3d at 271; Rodriguez, 232 S.W.3d at 61; see 

Bonds, 403 S.W.3d at 873. We consider the totality of the circumstances and determine whether 

there are sufficient facts stated within the four corners of the affidavit, coupled with inferences 

from those facts, to establish a fair probability that evidence of a particular crime would be found 

at a given location. Rodriguez, 232 S.W.3d at 62; see also Flores v. State, 319 S.W.3d 697, 702 

 7 The standard for reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress that is based on a magistrate’s probable-cause determination is 

different from the standard for reviewing a trial court’s ruling on other motions to suppress:

This Court normally reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress by using a bifurcated standard of review, where 

we give almost total deference to the historical facts found by the trial court and review de novo the trial court’s application 

of the law. However, when the trial court is determining probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant, there 

are no credibility determinations, rather the trial court is constrained to the four corners of the affidavit. Accordingly, when 

we review the magistrate’s decision to issue a warrant, we apply a highly deferential standard because of the constitutional 

preference for searches to be conducted pursuant to a warrant as opposed to a warrantless search.

McLain, 337 S.W.3d at 271 (internal citations omitted).
–12–

(Tex. Crim. App. 2010). As long as the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that 

probable cause existed, we will uphold the magistrate’s probable-cause determination. Bonds,

403 S.W.3d at 873; McLain, 337 S.W.3d at 271; see also Gates, 462 U.S. at 238–39. Although 

the reviewing court is not a “rubber stamp,” “the magistrate’s decision should carry the day in 

doubtful or marginal cases, even if the reviewing court might reach a different result upon de 

novo review.” Jones, 364 S.W.3d at 856–57 (quoting Flores, 319 S.W.3d at 702).

ANALYSIS

The State argues that the trial court erred when it granted Wongsamrit’s motion to 

suppress the evidence seized at 3820 Vitruvian Way #521. The State argues that when viewed as 

a whole, the facts learned during the investigation gave the magistrate a substantial basis for 

concluding that the information on the flash drive was not stale and that there was a fair 

probability that evidence of an ongoing prostitution enterprise would be found at the apartment. 

We agree with the State.

The trial court concluded that the information on the flash drive was stale and could not 

support the magistrate’s probable-cause determination because it was “over a year old at the time 

the warrant was signed.” But the central question for the magistrate was whether “probable 

cause existed at the time the warrant issued to believe that the items were still located at the place 

to be searched.” Gonzales v. State, 761 S.W.2d 809, 813 (Tex. App.—Austin 1988, pet. ref’d) 

(internal quotation and brackets omitted). As the court of criminal appeals recently explained, 

“[t]he likelihood that the evidence sought is still available and in the same place is a function, not 

just of the watch or the calendar, but of the particular variables in the case.” Crider v. State, 352 

S.W.3d 704, 707–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). In addition to the passage of time between the 

events set out in the affidavit and the time the search warrant was issued, reviewing courts 

should also consider:
–13–

(1) the type of crime alleged—[a single, nonrecurring crime] versus [a] longterm criminal enterprise or conspiracy;

(2) the suspect—nomadic traveler, entrenched resident, or established 

ongoing businessman;

(3) the item[s] to be seized—perishable and easily transferred [versus] 

enduring utility to its holder (a bank vault filled with deeds, a meth lab, or 

a graveyard corpse); and 

(4) the place to be searched—a mere criminal forum of convenience [versus 

a] secure operational base.

Id. at 708 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Taking into account all of the relevant 

factors, the passage of time becomes less significant when the facts alleged indicate activity of a 

protracted and continuous nature occurring at a secure operational base. See Jones, 364 S.W.3d 

at 861. 

According to McFarland’s affidavit, over twelve months elapsed between the receipt of 

the flash drive and time the warrant was issued. But based on the other relevant factors in this 

case it was reasonable for the magistrate to believe that the evidence sought was still located in 

the apartment. First, the types of crimes alleged, including human trafficking and compelling 

prostitution, were of a protracted and continuous nature. Second, the individuals identified on 

the flash drive, Benson and Waralee Duarte, were not nomadic—they were still leasing the 

apartments identified in the flash drive at the time the warrant was issued. Third, the types of 

evidence sought, such as computers, bank records, and passports, were not perishable and would 

have enduring utility to their holders. And finally, the apartment appeared to be a secure 

operational base for an ongoing prostitution ring. In short, this is the type of case in which the 

magistrate could have reasonably determined that the information on the flash drive was not 

stale. See, e.g., Jones, 364 S.W.3d at 861 (noting federal courts have held that in appropriate 

circumstances “years could pass without information becoming stale”).
–14–

The trial court also noted several facts that were omitted from McFarland’s affidavit. For 

example, with respect to the various men the maintenance worker saw coming and going from 

apartment #552, the trial court noted that McFarland did not state when, exactly, the maintenance 

worker saw them, how many he saw, or how long those men stayed at the apartment. And with 

respect to the suspected prostitution client seen by the maintenance worker and later by the 

police, the trial court noted that McFarland did not state that anyone saw the man actually enter 

or leave any particular apartment, and does not state “why this person was a suspected ‘John’ 

other than he was a male by the elevator leading to the fifth floor.” But for reviewing courts, 

including trial courts, the issue “is not whether there are other facts that could have, or even 

should have, been included in the affidavit.” Rodriguez, 232 S.W.3d at 62. Instead, “we focus 

on the combined logical force of the facts that are in the affidavit, not those that are omitted from 

the affidavit.” Id.

The trial court also determined that certain facts stated in McFarland’s affidavit “are as 

consistent with innocent behavior as with criminal activities.” For example, according to the 

trial court, the fact that one young Asian female wearing a robe was inside apartment #521 when 

the pest control worker provided service on February 7 “does not provide any probable cause or 

support any suspicion that prostitution is being conducted in the apartment.” But reviewing 

courts are prohibited from isolating and analyzing particular facts stated in a probable-cause 

affidavit because this approach “conflicts with the established requirement that courts review 

warrant affidavits as a whole.” McClain, 337 S.W.3d at 273; see also Williams v. State, No. 11-

12-00103-CR, 2014 WL 3865786, at *6 (Tex. App.—Eastland July 31, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., 

not designated for publication) (“parsing each paragraph and attacking them individually . . . is 

inconsistent with the prohibition against reading the affidavit in a hyper-technical manner”); 

Henson v. State, No. 03-11-00552-CR, 2013 WL 1748792, at *6 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 18, 
–15–

2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Under the totality-of-the-circumstances standard of analysis, the 

information contained in the affidavit must not be viewed in isolation[.]”). 

The affidavit in this case required some inferences by the magistrate. But considering all 

of the facts presented in the affidavit, we conclude that the inferences were reasonable. For 

example, it was reasonable for the magistrate to infer that the police received a reliable report 

from a woman who said that Benson and Waralee Duarte were forcing her and other women to 

have sex with a lot of men and were holding the women’s passports to prevent them from 

leaving. The woman who sent the flash drive included specific information about who was 

running the prostitution ring and where they were operating. She also included pictures of Asian 

women that the police confirmed were being used as ads on websites commonly used to gain and 

screen prostitution clients. 

It was also reasonable for the magistrate to infer that the apartment was not being used as 

a residence and was instead being used as operational base for an ongoing criminal enterprise. 

When the police spoke to management at the Vitruvian Way apartments, they learned that 

Benson and Waralee Duarte each leased separate apartments despite being married, and that their 

wedding ceremony was attended by young Asian women who looked nervous. They also 

learned that Benson granted building access by telephone hundreds of times in the span of a few 

months. While the police were there investigating, a man from out of town was granted access 

to the building around the same time that Benson provided someone with building access by 

telephone. The man appeared to spend about an hour in apartment #552, which an experienced 

police officer attested was consistent with the behavior of a prostitution client. 

Under the totality-of-the-circumstances test and giving due regard to all reasonable 

inferences that can be drawn from the stated facts, the magistrate had a substantial basis for 

concluding that probable cause existed to search the apartment at issue in this case for evidence 
–16–

of the alleged offenses, including human trafficking and prostitution. As a result, we conclude 

that the trial court erred when it granted Wongsamrit’s motion to suppress the evidence seized at 

that apartment. We sustain the State’s sole issue on appeal.

CONCLUSION

We reverse the trial court’s order granting Wongsamrit’s motion to suppress and remand 

this case for further proceedings.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

131525F.U05

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
–17–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

No. 05-13-01525-CR V.

SINEENAS WONGSAMRIT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-10014.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers. 

Justices O'Neill and Brown participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order granting appellee 

Sineenas Wongsamrit’s motion to suppress is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Judgment entered this 29th day of October, 2014.