### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 51 -C R

______________________________ THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V. J OHN ED WARD HI L L , Appellee
On Appea l from the 402nd Judi cial District Court

Wood C ounty , Texas Trial Court No. 20,504-2008

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Op ini on by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issHill's re sidence is on U.S. Highwa y 69, in Alba, Texas. 1 As a r e s u lt o f th e s e ar c h , H il l w a s ar r e s te d an d late r in d ic te d w it h th e f ir s t- d e g r e e fe lony 2 offe nse of p o s s es s ion of a c ontrolled substance (methamphe tamine) with intent to deliver in the amount of four

g rams or more , but less than 200 g rams, in violation of Section 481.112 of the Te x as Hea lth and Safety

Code. The a ffidavit, dated Aug ust 9, 2008, and si g ned by Miles Tucker , an off icer with the Wood 3 C o u n t y S h e r i f

f ' s O f f i c e , s o u g h ta

s e ar c h w ar

r an tf o r a r e s i d e n c e l o c a t e d

i nA l b a i nW o o d C o u n t y, based on the belief that methamphetamine would be found at the r esidenc e. Se e, e .g ., Tor

re s v . S tat e , 552 S.W .2d 821, 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). 4 Hill's mot ion to suppress allege d that the sea rch of his Alba reside nce w as unre asonable and 5 ill e g a l in that it vio la te d th e F ourt

h A me ndme nt t o th e Un ite d St a te s Co ns tit uti on ; Art ic le 1, Section 9 of the Te x as Constitut ion; and Article 18.01 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure. Hill c laimed that the af

fidavit on which the w arr ant was g rante d lacke d probable cause and that the information containe d in the aff idavit was stale. 2

O P IN I O N This case revolve s around a sear ch wa

rra nt that authorized office rs t o sear ch the Wood County residenc e of J ohn Edwar d Hill for methamphetamine. The warra nt was iss ued based on 1 2 a sing le affi d av i t t h at named none of the va rious informants and did not re cite that any of the 3

u n n a me d in f

o r ma n ts h a d p r o v id e d r e li a

b le in f o r mati o n in th e p a s t. T h e a f f id a v it d id, however , 4 provide a number of a lleg ations sugg esting that the drugmight be f ound in the residenc e. The trial court g rante d Hill's motion to suppress the methamphetam i n e and drugpara pherna lia that wer e 5On a pp e a l, t he State c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt imp ro pe rl y

g ra nte d th e mot ion

to s up pr e ss 6 evidenc e and that the af

fidavit in question is sufficient to establish probable cause . The State a sks that the suppression orde r be r ever sed and that the fruits of the se arc h be re instated. After an evide nt iary

hear ing on H ill's motion to suppress evidenc e, the tria l court g rante d 7 the mot ion and

su pp re sse d a ll e vid e nc e se ize d in the se arc h. Th e c ourt

iss ue d f ind ing s o f f

a c t in support of its order. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 18.01 (V ernon Supp. 2008). 8 3 fo un d in the re sid e nc e , a

nd the State a

pp e a ls. B e c a

us e the tr ia l c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in 6

s u p p re s s i n g t h e e v i d en ce , we af fi rm t h at ru l i n g. 7 A trial cour

t's r uling on a

motion to s uppress e videnc e l i es wi t hin its sound di scre tion. Vi lla rre al v . S

tat e , 9 35 S.W. 2d

13 4, 13 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Car te r v . S tat e , 150 S.W .3d 230, 23 5 ( Te x. Ap p. —T e xar

ka na 20 04 , no pe t.)
. We wil l upho ld the tr ia l court ' s rul ing if it is r e a so na bly support ed b y the re cord a nd is corre ct on any

theory of law a pplicable to the c ase. Villarreal , 935 S
. W
. 2 d at 1 3 8 (c i t i n g Ro me ro v . S tat e , 800 S.W .2d 539, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)). I no u r r ev i ew o f s ea rc h -w ar r a n taf fi d av i t s , gre at d ef

er en ce i s gi v en t o t h e m agi s t ra t e's deter mination of the exist ence or abse nce of probable cause . Swe ar inge n v . S tat e , 143 S.W .3d 808, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). He re, a s in Swearingen , the probable cause claim i s also based on a state statute. When we re view a pr obable- cause claim based on state constitutional and statutory

8 law as well as on the Four th A mendment to the United States Constit ution, we use the de fer ential
s t an d ar d r e qu i r e d b y Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 234–37 (1983). Sw ea ringen , 143 S.W .3d at 811. Acc ording ly , sear ch wa rra nts should not be invalidated by interpre ting a ffidavits i n a4

"hy perte chnica l" manner; i nstead, we should use common sense. Gates , 462 U.S. at 236. A searchwa rr ant af

fidavit must be rea d in a common-sense and re alistic manner. Cassias v. S tat e , 719 S.W. 2d 58 5, 58 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ); Da v is v . S tat e , 202 S.W .3d 1 4 9 , 1 5 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Probable c ause to support the issuanc e of a sear ch warra nt exis ts when " the fa cts submitted to the mag istrate ar e suff

icient to justify

a conc lusion that the object of t he search is proba bly on the prem is es to be s earch ed at th e ti me t he w arran t i s i ss ued ." Cassias , 719 S.W .2d at 587. M oreove r, to j us tif y the iss uan ce of a sear c h w arr ant, the a ff ida vit in s up po rt

the re of mus t se t f

or th f a c ts sufficie nt to establish probable c ause: (1) that a specific offe nse has be en committed, (2) that the spe cifica lly descr ibed proper ty or items that are to be sea rched for or

seized constitute evidence of that offe nse or e vidence that a par ticular pe rson committed that offe nse, and ( 3) that the proper ty or items constituting evide nce to be sear ch for or seized ar e located at or on the par ticular pe rson, place , or thing to be sea rche d. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 18.01(c ) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). Reasonable infere nces ma y be dra wn from the a ffidavit. W

ils on v . S tat e , 98 S.W .3d 265, 271 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1st Dis t.] 200 2, pe t. re f' d)
. We loo k to the tot a lity of the c ir c ums tanc e s to deter mine whether

the fa cts set forth in the a ffidavit ar e adequate to e stablish probable c ause. Ramos

v . S tat e , 9 3 4 S
. W
. 2 d

3 5 8 , 3 6 2

– 6 3 ( T e x . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 6 ). Fi n al l y , s t at em en t s m ad e du ri n g a suppression hea

ring do not fac tor into the probable c ause de termination. We examine only the four
corne rs of the a ffidavit to deter m i n e whether probable cause exis ts. Ma sse yv . S tat e , 933 S.W .2dTh e tr ia l c ourt ' s f ind ing s o f f

a c t are a s f

oll ow s: 9 (1 ) T he of fi c e r' s te sti mony

re g ard ingwh a t he kn e w ab ou t his inf or mant' s r e lia

bil ity is i rr e le va nt i f i t w a s n ot c on ta ine d in the a ff ida vit ; (2 ) T he a ff

ida vit wh oll y fa ile d to e sta

bli shthe re lia

bil ity of any inf or mant; (3 ) T h e o n l y

re m ai n i n g gro u n d

fo r s u p p o rt i n g p ro b ab l e c au s e w as t h e a ff i an t 's persona l observation of ve hicles coming and g oing ove r a thre e hour pe riod; (4 ) T he of

fi c e r' s o bs e rv a tio n o f v e hic le s at D e fe nd ant' s ho us e fa ile d to e sta bli sh probable cause for the se arc h.
5 14 1, 14 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Elar do v . S tat e , 163 S.W .3d 760, 763 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. re f' d). Th e du ty of thi s Cour

t is sim ply to de te rm ine wh e the r, g ive n the tot a lity of the c ir c ums tanc e s, the tr ia l c ourt , w he n v ie wi ngthe a ff ida vit , h a d a su bs tanti a l ba sis fo r c on c lud ingtha t pr ob a ble c a us e did not exis t to support the issuance of the war rant. Gates , 462 U.S. at 238. Th e State c on te nd s th a t th e inf or ma tio n s up pli e d b y

the un name d in fo rm ants wa s su ff ic ie ntl y
cre dible and re liable and that, e ven if it was not, the information provided by said informants wa s adequately

corr oborate d by

surveillance conducte d by law enf orce ment. The State fur

ther c ontends that the trial court err ed in g ranting the motion to suppress on the basis that the information in the aff idavit was stale. B eca

use the issue of sta leness wa s no t ru l ed o n b y the trial cour t, we do not
a dd re ss i t. 9 Apply ing the appropr iate standa rd of r eview a

nd lookin g o n l y to the four c orner s of the af fi d av i t , we co n cl u d e t h at t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o tab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o ni nm ak i n g i t s fi n d i n g.The a ffidavit does not state the number of inf ormants from whom the incriminating 10 information was obtained. Refer ence d in the aff idavit a re "se vera l sour ces," "thr ee se parate par ties," tw o i nfo rm ant s o f "I nv est igat or L ain ," and "an i nfo rm ant ." 6 The re liability

of an infor

mant is important whe n the information is used to justify a sea rch
war rant. Po ol v . S

tat e , 1 5 7 S
. W
. 3 d

3 6 , 4 5 (T ex . Ap p . —W ac o 2 0 0 4 , n o p et
. ) ( ci t i n g Lill yv . S tat e , 1 1 9 S
. W
. 3 d 9 0 0 , 9 0 3 ( T e x . A p p . — E a s t l an d 2 0 0 3 , p e t
. r e f

' d ) )
. W h i l e w e r e c o g n i z e t h a tr e l i a b i l i t y,
vera city , and the ba sis of knowledg e ar e no longer absolutely

require d to support issuance of a
war rant, they are never

theless hig hly

rele vant consider ations in the totality -of- the-c ircumstance s analy sis. Gates , 462 U.S. at 233. The a ffidavit in this case show s that all the incriminating information sworn to by Tucke r comes fr om unnamed conf idential informants. He arsa y from unnamed infor

mants may

be cr edited by showing the informant ha s g iven re liable, cre dible information in the past. See , e.g. , Torres , 552 S.W. 2d a t 82 4; Ce rd

a v . S tat e , 846 S.W .2d 533, 535 (Tex. App.—C o rp u s Christi 1993, no pet.). There is no rec itation in the instant a ffidavit that any of these informants have eve r p rovi ded 10

re lia ble , c re dib le inf

or ma tio n to a

law e nf or c e me nt a g e nc y

in t he pa st. Neve rtheless, the a

bsence o f an allegation of prior re liability is not necessa

rily prohibitive to a finding of pro bable c ause if the informant' s information is otherwise c orrobor ated within the four
corne rs of the a ffidavit. Ab e rc ro mb ie v . S tat e , 528 S.W .2d 578, 583– 8 4 (T ex . Crim. App. 1975). There fore , we must look elsewhe re in the aff idavit to determine whe ther the infor mant' s information is otherwise c orrobor ated.7

Th e a ff ida vit sig ne d b y

Tu c ke r o n A ugus t 9, 20 08 , is se t fo rt h, in pe rt ine nt pa

rt , a s f oll ow s: Affia nt has probable cause for [the belief that met h am p h etamine was in or on the premises of the Hil l residenc e on U.S. Hwy
. 69 in Alba] by rea son of the following fac ts and circ umstances: I n J uly of 2008 af

fiant re ceive d information from se vera l source s involving nar cotics traf fic at a re sidence located on H wy 69 West of the Alba Go lde n Sc ho ol.
. . . A ff

iant w a s to ld by thr e e se pa rate pa rt ie s th a t th e y

ha d b e e n to the re sidence and boug ht methamphetamine. On Aug ust 2nd, Iwas n o t i fi ed by I nvestig ator L ain that two of his infor mants had advised him of a residenc e near the Al ba -G old e n Sc ho ol w hic h w a s se lli ngme tha mph e tamin e . O n e a c h of t he se occa sions the i n fo rmants have advised that the pa rty selling the methamphetamine is named Johnny . Affia nt was ag ain contac ted on the 7th, [sic] of August and advised by

an informa

nt that he had pur chase d methamphetamine at the residenc e located on Hwy 69 the wee kend befor e and knew for a fa ct that the per son he knew at the location "re uped " o n Friday s and conduc ted business on Fr iday [s] and Saturday s. The informa

nt advised he knew this beca use he worke d for the person he knows as Johnny Walker. The informant advised that he sold me thamphetamine f or this person and in turn g ot paid cash a nd m ethamphetamine. On the 8th day of Aug ust affia

nt along with o t h er investigator s from the Sherif f' s Offic e conduc ted surveillance on the re sidence in question. I nvestig ators obser ved appr ox imately

20 car s come to the re sidence and leave within a matter of three hours. Eac h vehicle w e ob se rv e d o nly

sta y e d a fe w m inute s. Th e se a c tio ns are a c tio ns ty pic a lly ob se rv e d in narc otic activity . Ibelieve this information provided by informants as we l l as surveillance conducte d of the re sidence would lead a rea sonable pe rson to believe the re to be na

rc oti c s loc a te d a t the re sid e nc e . Af fi ant b e lie ve s th a t it

is m or e lik e ly than not that there will be narc otics located in the r esidenc e. Af fiant fur ther be lieves there is a nee d to execute a se arc h war rant without furt h er hesitation due to school be g inn ingin a

pp ro xima te ly

tw o w e e ks
. Most of the aff

idavit's a lleg ations clea

rly could not support probable cause . We n ote t hat , f

ir st, the a ff

ida vit c ite s " se ve ra l so ur c e s" fo r t he g e ne ra l c la im that th e re is
nar c o ti c s tr a f

f ic a t th e r e s id e n c e . We in te r p r e t th a t a s a th e s is s e n te n c e f o r th e a ll e g ations that fo llo w. I f it wa s inte nd e d to be a spe c if ic a lle g a tio n to hel p e sta

bli shpr ob a

ble c a us e , it wh oll y fa ils
.8

Ne xt, the a ff

ida vit re c ounts that " thr e e se pa ra te pa rt ie s" re po rt e d to Tu c ke r t

hat th e y ha d b oth been to the r esidenc e and ha d purcha sed methamphe tamine. Presumably , these pa rties' drug purcha ses wer e at the residenc e, though that is not expli citly set out. The aff idavit supplies no date, time, or details conc erningany of the purc hases. Whil e these three unnamed infor mants did make admissions ag ainst their pena l interests, there is no i n formation about the place or time of the repor ted purc hases. That falls short of setting out probable c ause. Se e Ab e rc ro mb ie , 528 S.W .2d at 581. Next, the affidavit indicate s that L ain had two unnamed informa n t s t el l h im that "the residenc e" was selling methampheta mine and that the se ller' s name wa s "Johnny ." I n this inst ance , not only wer e the infor

mants unnamed, they

wer e quoted se cond hand, a nd they made no admissions ag ainst interest. That f

alls short of mak i n g o u t p ro b able c ause. Se e Lowe ry v . S tat e , 843 S.W .2d 136, 140 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, pe t. ref' d). We will dis cuss below the a ffi d av i t's ne x t alleg ation—a key alleg ation we will ca ll the "Aug ust 7 alleg ation"—f

rom one unnamed informant about his purchase of methamphetamine at the residenc e the pr evious wee k. Finally , t h e af

fidavit rec ounted offic ers' surveillance of the re sidence during a thre e-hour pe ri od , duri ng wh ic h so me tw e nty a uto mob ile s c a me and we nt fr om the re sid e nc e , e a c h s tay ingon ly a fe w minutes, and that such a ctivity was " ty pically involved in n ar co t i c ac t i v i ty ." T hat does not make out proba

ble ca use. Althou gh the fa ct that known nar cotics user s fre quent a plac e for briefTh e State a c kn ow le dg e s th a t th e "th ree se pa rate pa rt ie s" c ou ld b e the same inf or mants 11 ref ere nced in the pr ece ding pa rag raph of

the af fidavit as " sever al s o urce s" or they could be thre e dif fe re nt i nf or mants
. 9 str e tc he s o f t ime may su ff ic e to c or ro bo rate an in fo rm ant' s ti p, thu s c omb ini ngto e sta bli shpr ob a

ble
cause , e.g ., Po lan c o v . S

tat e , 475 S.W .2d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972), it does not by itself provide
more than a rea sonable suspicion that c ontraba nd may be found the re. Cassias , 719 S.W .2d at 590. Th e State c on te nd s th a t th e inf or ma tio n r e c e ive d in

July fr om t hr e e se pa rate inf or mants is

11

corr oborative in a

nd of itself. The State r elies on W oo d v . S tat e , 573 S.W .2d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), in support of this contention. W ood can be di stinguished from the instant case beca use W ood involved tw o n a

me d in f o r ma nts c o r r o b orating information obtained f rom an unnamed informant, thus furnishing reliability

in reg ard to the unna

med inform ant. See id. at 216–17. Her e, all of the informants are unnamed. We f ind no authority to suppor t the proposition that "se v er al " u n named informants, the pre cise number unknown, ca

n serve to corrobor ate the statements of ea ch other
. The State c ontends that bec ause e ach o f t he unname d informants had pur chase d
me tha mph e tamin e a t the re sid e nc e in July 20 08 , e a c h h a d ma de an a dmi ssi on a g a ins t pe na l in te re st,
a re c og nize d c or

ro bo ratin g fa c tor
. Th e State do e s n ot p oin t to any sp e c if ic langua g e in t

he a ff ida vit in support of its contention. A review of the affidavit reve als an a lleg ation that "a ffiant wa s told by thr e e se pa

rate pa rt ies th at th e y

ha d b e e n to the re sid e nc e and bo ug ht m e tha

mph e tamin e ." Th e re is no specific alleg ation in the aff idavit th a t t he " three separ ate pa

rties" purcha sed the methamphetamineTh is p or tio n o f t he a ff ida vit a lso state s th a t th is i nf

or mant " so ld m e tha

mph e tamin e fo r t

his 12 [Johnny Wal ke r] p e rs on

and in tur n g ot pa id c a sh and me tha

mph e tamin e ." Th e same inf or mant a lso was quoted a s repor

ting that the pe rson at the r esidenc e " re- ups" on Fr iday s. These latter portions of this r eport, though interesting , do not make out pr obable cause due to the ir lack of spec ificity as to time and place
. 10 in J uly 2 0 0 8
. T h is s tate me n t d o e s n o t in d ic a te w h e n th e p u r c h a s e to o k p la c e o r f r o m w h o m the purcha se wa s made. I n Ab e rc ro mb ie , the trial court examined a statement from an unname d informant to the ef fec t that "in the pa st he had ha ndled and smoked marijuana ." 528 S.W .2d at 581. The c ourt deter mined that th is s ta te me nt, wi tho ut m or e , d oe s no t fu rn ish su ff ic ie nt un de rl y ingc ir c ums tanc e s to wa rr a nt a finding that the unnamed inf ormant wa s cre dible and re liable. Id. We find the s ame to be true of the statement quoted a

bove. We now turn to the Aug ust 7 alleg ation, which alleg es that " aff iant was ag ain contac ted on the 7th of August and advised by an informa

nt that he ha d purcha sed methamphe tamine at the residenc e located on Hwy . 69 the wee kend bef o re . " T his alleg ation comes c losest to making out 12 pr ob a ble c a us e . I t is an a dmi ssi on a g a ins t int e re st of the inf or mant a nd me nti on s th e pla c e and

a t le a st an appr o x i m at e t i m e p er i o d wi t h i nwh i ch t h e r ep o rt edp u rc h as e o cc u rr ed
. An ad m i s s i o naga i n s tp enal interest, eve n by

a first-time infor

mant, is a fac tor indicating reliability
. Me jia v . S tat e , 761 S.W .2d 35, 38 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1988, pet. re f' d). T h e S t at e re lies on Me

jia , a mo n g o th e r

c a s e s , in s u p p o rt o f it s c la im th a t t h e a d mi s s ion ag ainst penal intere st strongly validates the infor

mation pr ovided by the unnamed informant. All ofSee, e .g. , He nn essy v . S tat e , 660 S.W .2d 87, 91 (Tex. Crim. App. [P anel Op.] 1983) (named 13 inf or mant c a rr y ingta pe re c or de r c on c e a le d on his pe rs on wi th tr ans mit tin g de vic e , tr ans mit tin g a ll conver sation reg ardingimminent armed robbe ry to police of

fi ce r; informant a

nd others ar

rested be fo re the ro bb e ry pr ov ide d e xten siv e de ta il r e g ard ingthe pr e se nc e of dr ug s in sid e the re sid e nc e to be ro bb e d) ; Me

jia , 761 S.W
. 2 d

3 5 ( n a me d in f o r ma nt caug ht red-ha

nded and a dmitted to participation i na c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y

m ay b e c o n s i d e r e d

r e l i a b l e ); Ab erc ro mb ie , 528 S.W .2d 578 (unname d inf or mant a dmi tte d to po sse ssi on and de liv e ry of mari hu ana the pr e vio us da y wi th s pe c if

ic de ta il; aff id a v it p r o v id e d s u c h d e ta il an d mi n u te p arti c u la r it y th a t it c o u ld r e a s o n a

b ly b e in f

err ed that inf or mant g a ine d his inf

or ma tio n in a re lia ble wa y and wa s su ff ic ie ntl y inc ri min a tin g ); Lowe ry , 843 S.W .2d 136 (ac knowledg ing that admission a g ainst penal intere st is factor indicating r eliability , but finding aff

idavit lacked pr obable c ause)
. 11 those ca ses, howeve r, involved sig nificant a dditional corrobor ative fa ctors. We, the ref ore, c onsider 13 the validation value of

this admissi on ag ainst penal intere st in conjunct i o n with the totality of the inf or ma tio n p ro vid e d in

the a ff ida vit
. Th e State fu

rt he r c la ims the inf

or ma tio n p ro vid e d in

the a ff ida vit is s uf fi c ie ntl y de ta ile d to
cr ea te a r easona

ble infer ence of proba

ble ca use. As discussed pr eviously , the af fidavit in question is silent as to prior reliability of the unnamed informants. We, there fore , look to other factors that may be conside red w hen eva luating a first-time informant' s reliability and cr edibility . These f actor s include the pr esenc e or a bsence of a c riminal rec ord, employ ment history , and re putation in the
c o m m u n i t y. See Ab e rc ro mb ie , 5 28 S.W. 2d a t 58 3– 84 ; Be lla h v . S

tat e , 6 4 1 S. W. 2 d 6 4 1 , 6 4 3 ( T e x. App.—El Paso 1982), a

ff 'd , 653 S.W .2d 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). The instant af fidavit does not
se t f or th a ny of the se fa c tor s. Ab e rc ro mb ie held t h at , i n a case with many simil arities to the one be fore us, there w as probable cause beca

use t he affidavit was very detailed in describing the drugfound, its handling byFor example, there is no mention of de tails surrounding th e basis for the statement 14 reg arding"na

rcotics tra ffic" activity ; the re is no mention of how the unnamed sour ces be came awa re of the drug traff

icking activity or when in re lationship to t he Jul y 2008 disclosure this activity was alleg ed to have occur

red. A g ain, the statement by "thr ee separ ate parties" that they had bee n to the residenc e to buy

methamphetamine doe s n o t i nclude infor mation disclosing how these source s le arn e d o f t

his inf or ma tio n o r wh e n thi s inf

or ma tio n wa s r e po rt e d to law e nf or c e me nt. Th e a ff

ida vit is silent with respe ct t o when these transac tions occur red and is silent reg ardingthe identity of the p e r s o nf r o m w h o m m e t h a mp h e t a m i n e w a s p u r c h a s e d
. T h i s p e r s o n i s o n l y i d e n t i f i e d a s " J o h n n y" or " J ohnny

Walker," and no phy sical desc ription is provided. 12 the informant, a

nd its delivery

to defe ndant Aber crombie. The Ab e rc ro mb ie c o u r t u l t i m a t e l y h e ld— in an opinion on rehe aring reve rsing its previous holdi ng—that the affidavit provided "such detail and minute particular ity " in se tting out the fac ts, the mag istrate was ther efor e re asonable in inferr ing that the informant g ained his or he r " sufficie ntly incriminating " inf

ormati o n i n a reliable wa y . See Ab e rc ro mb ie , 528 S.W .2d at 585. Her e, the a ffidavit' s rec itation of the Aug ust 7 alleg ation d o es not contain " such deta il and minute particular ity " f

ound in Ab e rc ro mb ie
. Thus, it was not an a buse of discr etion of the trial c ourt t o r e j e c t an i n f

e r e n c e t h a t t h e A u g u s t7 i n f o r m an t g a i n e d h i s i n f o r m a t i o ni na

r e l i a b l e w ay. Se e id
.

14 T h e o n l y information that was c lose to the detail provided in Ab e rc ro mb ie was that the infor mant

" ha d p ur c ha se d me tha

mph e tamin e a t the re sid e nc e loc a te d o n H wy 69 the we e ke nd

be fo re ." Whil e the informant a lso advised that " he knew this because he wor

ked for the per son he knows as Johnny Wal k e r . . . [an d ] th a t h e s o ld me th a mp h e ta mi n e f o r th is p e r s o n an d in tu

r n g o t p aid ca sh and methamphetamine," there is no phy sical description of t he person known as "Johnny Walker" and no
me nti on e d inve sti g a tio n of thi s poss ibl e a lia s o r a ny c he c k o f p ro pe rt

y re c or ds fo r t

he lis te d p ro pe rt

y13

to de termine whether someone by that name resided on the proper ty
. The aff

idavit doe s not include information which would c onfirm that the re sidence disclosed by the informant who "w orked f or the person he knows as J ohnny Walker" was indeed the same r esidenc e re fer ence d by the other unna

med
so ur c e s. Moreove r, the a ffidavit does not identify the suspect be lieved to be living in the residenc e i d en t i fi ed in the aff

idavit. The cour

t in Da v is v . S

tat e , 1 4 4 S
. W
. 3 d

1 9 2 ( T e x. A p p . — F o rtW or th 2004, pet. re f' d), dealt with a simil ar issue. Da v is involved an af fidavit containing information from
an unk no wn , a nd un tr ie d, c on fi de nti a l inf

or mant wh ic h cla ime d tha t tw o id e nti fi e d p e op le a t a c e rt a in residenc e we re in possession of a nd g rowing marihuana . The a ffidavit fa iled to state whethe r either of the individuals owned or controlled the house
. Id. at 199–200. Corroboration by the police of

fice r of the suspec ts' ide ntities included identify ing " Ba rbar a Ly nn Davis" throug h a drive r' s license c heck with the Texas Depar

tment of Public Safety and a " NRH computer c heck" to tie "B arba ra Ly nn Davis" to the residenc e in question. The a ffidavit fa iled to state that " Ba rbar a L y nn Davis" was the
same pe rs on

a s " B arb ara

Da vis " name d b y

the c on fiden ti al in forma nt o r t he same a s a

pp e lla nt,

" B arb ara Jean Davis ." Simi lar inf or ma tio n wa s obta ine d by the of fi c e r o n th e se c on d s us pe c t. Id. at 19 9. Th is e ff

or t on the pa rt of the inv e sti g a tin g of

fi c e r did no t amo un t to ve ri fi c a tio n o f t he ide nti ty of the individuals who re sided in the house. Id. at 200. The f ai l u re to undertake verific ation diminis hes the re liability

of the infor

mation pr ovided under the "totality of the c ircumstance s" w hen14

an informa

nt is used fo r t h e fi rst time and his or her identity is confidential. Id. ; se e Lowe ry , 843 S.W .2d at 141–42. I n this case, the a ffidavit does not set f orth the identity

of any individual believed to be living in the residenc e. I t merely states that t he informant sold methamphetamine for a person he knows as J ohnny Walker. No e ffor

t was made to determine w hether a per son named Johnny

Walker re sided in the trailer de scribed in the a ffidavit. F urther, the aff idavit fails to make a c onnection betwe en the
re sid e nc e and

the a pp e lle e in t

his c a se , Joh n E dw ard

Hi ll. T h e a f f i d a v i t h e r e d o e s n o t c o n t a i n t h e l e v e l o f d e t a i l n e c e s s ar y t o r e qu i r e t h e t r i a l c ou rtto have c re dit e d th e inf

or ma tio n p ro vid e d b y

the un name d inf

or mants . B ut t

he a ff ida vit a lso re c ounts the police surve illance. Whil e information from an unname d informant alone may not e stablish pr obable cause , the informant' s tip, c ombined with independent police investigation, may provide a substantial basis for the proba ble-c ause f

inding. E la rdo , 163 S.W .3d at 767–68. Corroboration by independe nt police inv e st i g a t i o n m e a

n s t h a t " i n l i g h t o f t h e c i r c u m s t an c e s , t h e o f f i c e r c o n f i r m s e n o u g h f

a c ts t o
reas on abl y con clu de tha t th e in for mat io n prov id ed is rel iab le a nda det ent io n i s j us ti fi ed. " Jones v

. Sta te , 949 S.W .2d 509, 515 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 1997, no pet.). Corroboration of only innocent details is usually

insufficient. Da v is , 144 S.W .3d at 200. I n th is c a se , the State c on te nd s that the surv e ill anc e pe rf or me d by Tu c ke r ( in c on

jun c tio n w ith the other infor

mation contained in the a ffidavit) f or a pe riod of t h re e h o u rs , in which he obse rved15

approximately

twenty car s come a

n d go from the r esidenc e in question, is sufficient to provide a substantial basis for a f

inding of probable cause . T h e re l i abil ity and cr edibility

of the infor

mation p ro v i d ed b y t h e u n n am ed i n fo rm an t s i s v i rt u al l y n o n ex i s t en t
. T h e q u es t i o nh er e i s wh et h er T u ck er 's surveillance confirms suff icient fa cts to rea sonably

conclude the i nformation alr eady provided in the aff idavit is re liable. See Jones , 9 4 9 S
. W
. 2 d a t 5 1 5
. T h e f a c t s c o n f i r m e d ar e m e r e l y t h a to nF r i d a y, Aug ust 8, at some unknown time of day , approximately twenty vehicles came and left the re sidence wi th in a s p ano f a p p r o xim a te ly

thr e e h o u r s . N o th in g e ls e w a s o b s e r v e d b y T u c k e r s u g g e s ting
na rc oti c s a c tiv ity , a

nd no e ff or t wa s ma de by law e nf

or c e me nt to c on fi rm that any of the oc c up a nts of the twe nty

or so vehicle s leaving the prope rty had just purcha sed methamphe tamine. I n Cassias , th e c ourt held th a t it wa s unr e a so na

ble to b a se a

fi nd ingof

pr ob a ble c a us e to
sear ch a residenc e on an aff idavit that did littl e more than note "a ppare ntly innocent ac tivity " dur ing surveillance of the subjec t property
. 719 S.W .2d at 587. The a lleg ed cor roborative statement in the Cassias affi dav it mos t c los e ly re se mbl ingthe inf

or ma tio n p ro vid e d b y

Tu c ke r w a s: " [T]hi s information has be en che cked out by aff aint [si c] and surveillance be g an since Marc h 31, 1980, by aff aint [si c]. Affa int [ sic] has also observed se vera l narc otic users in and out of 724 D el Mar, sta y ing for bri ef pe ri od s o f t im e." Id. Whil e the court questioned the basis for the a ffiant' s knowledg e that tho se ob se rv e d we re na

rc oti c s use rs , th is i nf

or ma tio n d id n ot p ro vid e any thi ngmor e tha

n a re a so na ble suspicion—not probable c ause—that contraba nd could be f

ound there
. Id. at 589–90.16

I n thi s c a se , the a lle g e d c or ro bo rativ e state me nts of Tu c ke r do no t ide nti fy any of thos e
c omi ng and g oin g fr om the tr a ile r a s " na rc oti c s us e rs ," no r do the y a tte mpt to ide nti fy any of the se individuals. W hile Tucke r opines in a conc lusory manner that "the se ac tions are ty

pically observe d in narc otics activ i t y ," his stateme nts do nothing more to sug g est that any illega l substances we re purcha sed by the occupa

nts of the subject vehic les. The a ffidavit' s rec itations of police surveillanc e do not provide information requiring the t rial court to find probable cause . Probable c ause doe s not arise by v i rt u e o f t he fa ct that seve ral pe ople, whose ide ntity , reliability , cre dibilit y , or basis of knowledg e is unestablished, g ave of fice rs information conc erningcriminal ac tivity
. Lowe ry , 843 S.W .2d at 141. The a ffida v i t i n q u est ion does not contain information mandating a finding of probable cause . Under

the totality

of the c ircumstance s, and ac cordingg reat defe re n ce t o the trial
c ourt ' s d e te rm inatio n o f a la c k o f p ro ba

ble c aus e, we ho ld that th e tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its discretion in g ranting Hill's motion to suppress. We a ff ir m th e ru lin g of

the tr ia l c ourt
.

J o s h R
. M o r r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: Aug ust 31, 2009 Date D ecide d: October 16, 2009 Pub lis h