NO. 07-07 -015 4-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A MA RC H 6, 20 08

_________

_________

_________

___ BENJAMIN HUDSON, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 12 1 ST DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T ER RY COU NT Y; NO . 563 5; H ON ORABLE KELLY G. M OOR E, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION Fol low ing a pl ea o f g u i l ty , A p p e l lan t, Benj amin Hud son, w as conv icted o f posse ss ion of methamphetami ne. Puni shmentwas ass ess ed atei g hte e n m o n ths con finement i n a sta te jai l facil ity , sus pended in fav or of fiv e y ears c ommunity su per v is ion , and a $7 50 fine. By a s ole i ss ue, A ppel lan t q uest ion s w hether the tr ial co urt erred in deny ing hi s mot ion toAl thoug h Appe ll ant’ s i ss ue and his Summary of A rg ument referenc e ar ti cl e 38. 23 1 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re , no arg ument is p re se n te d bas ed on that author ity . Thus, w e do not a nal yz e t h e m e rit s o f his is sue as itper

tai ns to ar

ti cl e 38. 23. SeeTex . R . Ap p. P . 38. 1( h)
. See als o Car denas v. State , 30 S.W .3d 3 84, 3 93 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 00). 2 suppress ev ide nce sei z ed i n v iol ati on of hi s c onst it uti onal r ig hts under the Four

th Amendment of the U nit ed Stat es Con sti tuti on and Ar ti cl e I, § 9 of the Tex as Con sti tuti on an d i n v i ol at i on o f ar

ti c l e 38 .2 3 of t he Te x as C od e of C r i mi na l P roc ed ure. W e affi r m. 1 Factual Background The onl y w it ness to tes ti fy at t he s uppress ion hear ing w as Off ic er Gabr iel C ar ri ll o. Acc ordin g to Car ri ll o, he was on pat ro l in full uni form on O cto ber 7, 2006, w h en he obse rv ed Ap pellan t w alking across a f ield f rom a resident ial nei g hb or ho od at app rox ima tely 3:50 a.m. As Appel lan t nea re d the cu rb , Car ri ll o act iv ated his patrol car li g hts and c all ed to hi m. W hen as ked fo r id e n tificat ion , Ap pel lan t produce d a s oci al sec ur ity ca rd and a pla sti c mov ie card. He als o prov ide d his name and date of bi rt h. Acc ordin g to Ca rril lo, App ellant ’s ey es we re g lassy, and he w as ne rv ous a nd sh aky. Carrill o question ed h im about the u se of controll ed s ubst ances , s peci fical ly , abo ut s moki ng methamphet a m ine. Car ri ll o p laced Appe llant in f ront of his patrol car and began a p at do w n sea rch. He “c ru shed” the outs ide of Appel lan t’ s p ock ets and felt a box-l ike it e m w hic h Appe ll ant cl aimed w ere c ig arettes
. As re q uest ed by C ar ri ll o, Appel lan t remov ed th e i tem and pla ced it on the hood of the pat rol car. T he of f icer still not iced a bu lge on the side of Appe llant’s3

pock et an d asked him if he had “anythi ng ill eg al on hi m.” Ap pel lan t remov ed a bag g ie of mari huana from hi s p o ck e t a n d pl aced iton t he hood of the p atrol car . At t hat p oin t, Carrill o place d App ellantu nde r arrest for p ossessio n of marihu ana . Follow ing Appellan t’s ar re st, C ar ri ll o c onducted a war ra nt c heck to con f irm h is identi ty and he di sc ov ered a cr imi nal trespas s war ra nt i ss ued for Appel lan t. Appel lan t was tak en to the pol ic e depart ment for bookin g . Dur ing a search inc ide nt to arrest, the of

f icer reache d into Appe llan t ’s p ocketand foun d a sm all plastic baggie cont ain ing methamphet amine and s ome ca sh. Ev entual ly , Ap pel lan t was charg ed w ith poss ess ion of methampheta mine, not mari huana. Ap p e lla n t f ile d a m o ti o n to su p p re ss ille gal ly se ized evid e n ce . Fo llo wing a he a rin g, the t ri al cour

t den ied th e m o ti o n , and Appel lan t pl ead g uil ty and w as conv icted o f poss ess ion of methampheta mine. By a s ole i ss ue, h e c h a lle n ges the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er den y ing his motion to supp ress.

St and ard o f Rev iew -- Mo ti on t o Sup press A tr ial co urt' s r uli ng on a moti on to su ppress i s rev ie wed fo r abuse of dis creti on. Balenti ne v . St ate , 71 S. W .3d 763 , 768 (T ex.Cr im.A pp. 2 002 ). In review ing a tri al court’s dete rm in a ti on of the re asona ble ness of eit her a t emporar

y i nv est ig ati v e det enti on or an ar re st, appel lat e c our

ts use a bi furcat ed s tandard of rev iew
. Am ador v. Sta te , 221 S. W .3d 666 , 673 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 7). Almo st tota l deferen ce is g ive n t o a trial court’sSee S tate v. Cul len , 195 S.W .3d 6 96, 6 99 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)(hol din g that upon 2 the req uestof the l osi ng par ty on a moti on to su ppress ev ide nce, the tr ial cour t shal l sta te its essen tial f indings. If the losing party fa ils to req uestf indings of fact, and the trial court does not e nter

any of it s o w n ac cord, t he l osi ng par ty ca n s ti ll appeal any

adv erse ru li ng and Sta te v. Ross , 32 S.W .3d 853, 855- 56 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000) , w il l cont inu e to cont ro l how the trial court’s ruling is rev iew ed). 4 deter minatio n o f

t h e hi sto ri cal facts thatthe re cord s uppor ts espec ial ly

w hen t he tr ial cour t’ s fact findi ng s a re based on an ev alu ati on of credi bil ity and demeanor
. St. Geor ge v. State , 237 S.W .3d 720 , 725 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 7); Guz m an v . St ate , 955 S.W .2d 8 5, 89 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)
. Appel lat e c our ts als o afford the s ame l ev el of deference to a tr ial court’s ruling on app lication o f law t o fact question s o r m ix ed question s o f la w a nd fact if the resolution of

those q ues t io n s t urns on an evaluatio n of credibility

and dem ean or. Mo ntanez v. State , 195 S.W .3d 101, 108-0 9 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)
. Howev er , for mixed q uest ion s o f law

and fact w h ich do n ot fall w it hin thi s c ateg or y , app ell ate c our

ts may condu ct a de nov o rev iew of the tr ial co urt' s r uli ng . Am ador , 221 S.W .3d at 673. Appel lat e cour ts do not engag e in their ow n fact ual rev iew
. Rom er o v . St ate , 800 S.W .2d 5 39, 5 43 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1990)
. W hen , as here , no f indings of fact were requeste d nor filed, w e v iew the evidence 2 in the lig ht m ost favorable to the t rial cou rt's ruling a nd assum e the t rial cou rt mad e imp licit findi ng s o f factsu ppor ted b y the re cord. See Sta te v. Ross , 3 2 S .W .3 d 8 5 3, 85 5- 56 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 200 0). I f t he trial court’s decision is correct on any theory of law app licable to the cas e, it w il l be s ust ain ed. Ar m endar iz v. Sta te , 123 S.W .3d 4 01, 4 04 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 200 3); Ross , 32 S.W .3d a t 855 -5 6. At a suppre ss ion heari ng , the tri al cour t i s t he s ole andInterest ing ly , t he St ate a rg ued atthe suppress ion hear ing thatthe int eract ion 3 between Ap pel lan t and C ar ri ll o was a l awful det enti on; h ow ev er , on ap p e a l, the Stat e argues the interactio n w as an enco unt er. T he th ird category , arrests, is not relevant to this app eal. 4 5 ex cl usi v e tr ier

of fact and jud g e of the credi bil ity of w it ness es and t he weig ht t o be g iv en thei r tes ti mony . Id . at855. Addi ti onal ly , t he l eg al q uest io n o f wh e ther t he to tal ity

of the ci rc umstan ces i s s uff ic ien t t o s uppor t an off ic er ’s reason able s u spici on i s rev iewed de nov o. See Ma dden v

. St ate , 242 S.W .2d 5 04, 5 17 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007)
. Encounter v ers us Detention The Stat e urg es that becau se Appel lan t w il li ng ly answered Car ri ll o’s q uest ion s a nd coop erate d w hen asked to remo v e item s f rom h is pocket , the ir i nte racti o n w as a m ere encou nter , notreq uir ing reason abl e s uspi ci on of cr imi nal acti v ity . W e di sag re e. The 3 Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls has re cog niz ed three dis ti nct cat eg or ies of int eract ion s betw een police of

f icers and citizens: enco u n t e rs, inv estigative deten tions, and arrests. 4 State v . Pe re z , 85 S.W .3d 8 17, 8 19 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002)
. An enc ounter

i s a co nsens ual q uest ion and answ e r in teract ion between a ci ti z en and a pol ic e of

ficer , in a publ icplace, that does not req uire reason abl e s uspi ci on and does not impl ic ate cons ti tuti onal r ig hts
. See F lor idav. R oyer

, 460 U .S. 491, 497- 98, 1 03 S. Ct
. 1319, 75 L.Ed. 2d 229 (1 983) ; State v . Pe re z , 85 S. W .3d a t 819
. An i nv est ig ati v e det enti on occ urs w hen an ind iv idu al is encountered bya pol ic e of ficer , y iel ds to t he officer ’s di spl ay6

of author ity , and i s t emporar il y deta ine d for

purpos es of an i nv est ig ati on. Johns on v . St ate, 912 S.W .2d, 2 2 7 , 2 3 5 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 8 9 )
. A p e rs o n “ y i e l d s t o a n o ffi c e r ’ s d i s p l a y of aut hority” w hen a reaso nab le perso n would notfeel f ree to co ntinu e w alking or otherwi se ter minat e the enc o u n te r. Florida v. Bost ick, 501 U .S. 429, 436, 111 S. Ct . 238 2, 11 5 L.E d.2 d 3 8 9 (1991 ); Sta te v. Vel asque z , 994 S.W .2d 676 , 679 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 9); Johns on v

. St ate , 912 S
. W
. 2 d at234 -35. An investigativ e de ten tion is const itution ally per mis si ble i f, under

the tota li ty

of the ci rc umstan ces , t he officer has reason abl e s uspi ci on suppo rt ed by

ar ti cul abl e facts thatthe person detai ned i s, has been , o r soon w il l be eng ag ed in c ri minal acti v ity . Ter ry v. Ohi o, 392 U. S. 1 , 21- 22, 8 8 S. Ct . 186 8, 20 L.E d.2d 8 8 9 ( 1 9 68) ; Fo rd

v. Sta te, 158 S.W .3d 4 88, 4 92 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2005)
. W hether re asona ble su spi ci on ex is ts is dete rmi ned byco nsi der ing the facts know n to the o ff ic er at the momentof detent ion
. Dav is v. Sta te, 947 S.W .2d 2 40, 2 43 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)
. Act iv ati on of ov er head l ig hts on a police ve hic le does not n eces sar il y make an encou nter

non- cons ensua l. See F ra nks v. Sta te, 241 S. W .3d 1 35 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2007, no pet
. h.)
. Howev er , w hen a person sto ps in re spons e to a pat ro l car ’s emerg ency l ig hts rathe r than o f

his ow n acco rd, an investigatory det ent ion ha s occurred an d re a s o n able sus pic ion i s req uired. In Gar za v . St ate , 771 S.W .2d 549 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 9 ), in respo nse to an of

f icer turnin g on his pat rol car f lashing lig hts, th e de fend antstopp ed h is v ehi cl e at an aut o par

ts sto re . T he of

f icer testif ied that w hen he o bserved the defend ant ’s car , he bel iev ed th e dr iv er resembl ed a mug sh ot an d cont act ed other off ic ers by ra dio that he was about to s top t he i ndi v idu al. Id. at 55 2. The Stat e arg ued t here was no stop o r7

sei z ure bec ause the defendant v olu ntar il y stopped his car at t he aut o par ts sto re pursuant to a p re d e ter mined pla n. Id
. at5 56
. Th e C ou rt s ug g es te d, “ i t c an no t be s er i ou sly maint ain ed th at a re asona ble person under the ci rc umstan ces woul d hav e bel iev ed th at he was free to leave.” Id . at557. See al so Her nandez v. Sta te , 9 6 3 S
. W
. 2 d 921, 924 (Tex .App. –San A ntoni o 1998, pet. ref’d) ( act iv ati ng emerg e n cy l ig hts woul d c ause a re asona ble person to be li ev e he is not free t o l eav e)
. But see Fr anks v. Sta te , 241 S. W .3d at 14 2 ( act iv ati on of patrol car ’s ov er h e a d l ig hts i n an area th at ap peared dar k a nd unocc upi ed ex cept for a si ng le car does not n eces sar il y co nst it ute a dete nti on) ; Martin v. State , 104 S.W .3d 298 , 301 (T ex.App. –El Paso 2 003 , no pet .) (citing a New Mex ico Court of Appe als case ho lding that an of f icer’s use of overhead lig hts alone do es no t nece ssarily cause an en coun ter to be a stop). A di sti nct ion i n the under ly ing ca se is t h a t Ap pel lan t was not s topped w hil e i n a v ehi cl e. Rat her , he w as on foot. N ev erthel ess , a pedes tr ian i s e nti tl ed to the protecti on of t he Four

th Amendment as he walks d ow n the st re et. See Terry v. Ohio , 392 U .S. 1, 9, 88 S. Ct . 186 8, 20 L.E d.2d 889 ( 1968)
. In Tann er v. Sta te , 228 S.W .3d 8 52 (Te x .Ap p.–Aust in 200 7, no pet .), a police of f icer obse rv ed the defend anta n d a fem ale compani on walk ing from beh ind a ba r at 3: 00 a. m. and flashed hi s p atrol car l ig hts and si g nal ed for them t o s top. The female s topped, but the d efendant c onti nued t o walk
. Id. at 85 4. The off ic er

drov e tow ards the defendant, w ho then stopped. The off ic er se arched the d efendant and found methampheta mine. Id. a t 8 5 5 . Cit in g G a r za , 771 S.W .2d a t 558 , the c our t found, “[t]here i s n o q uest ion thatan inv est ig ati v e detent ion occ ur re d w hen [ the8

defend ant ] stop ped walking in respon se to [th e of f icer’s] dem and .” Tann er , 228 S.W .3d at 85 6 n.3
. Off ic er C ar ri ll o tes ti fied th at he obs er v ed App ell ant walk ing ac ro ss a f iel d and that as Ap pe l l an t ap proa c he d th e c ur b, h e acti v at ed h i s p at rol c ar l i g ht s a nd c al l ed o utt o hi m. Ap pe l l an t ap proa c he d C ar r i l l o an d c om pl i ed w i th h i s req ue s ts , i nc l ud i ng rem ov i ng i te ms from hi s p ock et, w hic h i ncl uded mar ihu a n a . O n cros s- ex aminat ion , C ar ri ll o ans w ered aff ir mati v ely

w hen as ked w hether

acti v ati on of his patrol car lig hts i s a co mmunic ati on to a pe rson to sto p. He also testif ied on cross-examina tion that had Ap pellan t f led f rom h im af ter activating his lig hts, he might have possib ly ch arged him w ith evading. No ev iden ce w as present ed that Car ri ll o bel iev ed App ell ant was in dis tress , t hat t he area was dar k, or t h a tsa fe ty re a s o n s e xis t e d fo r a ct iva t in g t h e p a t ro l c a r l i g h t s . Un d e r t h e s e fa ct s , we conclu de th at act iv ation of the pa trol car lights cause d App ellantt o y ield to Of f icer Carri llo’s show of author ity . W e furt her co ncl ude that Appel lan t did not feel free t o l eav e or dec li ne Car ri ll o’s req uest s. Thus, w e find that a det enti on occ ur re d req uir ing reason abl e s uspi ci on by C ar ri ll o to sto p Appe ll ant. Reas onable Sus picion The Fou rt h Amendmentof the U n it e d St ates C onst it uti on and Ar ti cl e I, § 9 of the Tex as Con sti tuti on protect ag ain st unreason abl e s e a rch e s and s eiz ures by g ov er nment off ic ial s. See Wiede v. State , 214 S.W .3d 1 7, 24 -2 5 ( T e x.Cri m .A p p. 20 07) ; John son v. State , 912 S.W .2d 2 32- 34; M ar ti nez v. State , 72 S.W .3d 76, 81 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2002,9

n o p e t
. ). T h e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f a n in ve s t ig a t ive d e t e n t io n i s d e t e rm in e d b y a d u a l i n qu iry: (1 ) w h e t h e r t h e o ffi c e r ’ s a ct i o n w a s j u s t i fi e d a t i t s i n c e p t i o n ; a n d ( 2 ) w h e t h e r i tw as reaso nab ly

related in sco pe to the circum stan ces w hich justif ied the in terferen ce in the f irst pla ce. Terry, 392 U .S. at 19 -2 0. An i nv est ig ati v e detent ion re q uires an off ic er to ha v e reason abl e s uspi ci on founded upo n articulab le facts tha t w hen co mb ined w ith ration al inferen ces f rom th ose facts, would lead him to reason ably suspect th at crimina l ac t ivi t y is afo ot an d tha t the deta inee is conne cte d to the a cti v ity . Id. at 21 ; Balenti ne , 71 S
. W
. 3 d a t7 6 8 . Th ese facts m ust amount t o more tha n a mere i n a rt icu la b le hunch or su spi ci on. W

il li am s v . St ate , 621 S.W .2d 6 09, 612 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1981) . Reas onabl eness of a s earch is a q uest ion of law that is reviewed d e novo and is ev alu ated by the total ity

of the c ircums tanc es. Kot he v. State , 1 5 2 S
. W
. 3 d 5 4 , 6 2 ( Te x . C r i m. App. 2004) ; Woods v. Sta te , 956 S.W .2d 3 3, 38 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)
. Off ic er C ar ri ll o tes ti fied th at he q uest ion ed Appell ant b ecaus e he w as w alk ing l ate a t n ig h t a n d b e c a u s e t h e re h a d b e e n re c e n t c ri m in a l m is c h ie f a n d b u rg la ri e s in t h e vic in it y. Acc ordin g to Car ri ll o, he was condu cti ng “e ffect iv e patrol” by sto ppi ng persons for walk ing dur ing the hours of 12 :30 a.m. and day li g ht. On cross -e x aminat ion , howev er , he tes ti fied that the “recent ” cr ime in the a re a had act ual ly oc cur re d s ome three month s e ar li er and consiste d of

a brick being throw n throu gh the back w indo w of a pickup
. He could not reca ll the ty pe of burg lar

y thatoc cur re d.Ni g htti me act iv ity per se is not suffici ent to create sus pic ion of cr imi nal acti v ity . See 5 Br own v. T exas , 443 U.S. 47, 53, 99 S.Ct. 26 37, 61 L.E d.2 d 35 7 (197 9). 10 Car ri ll o tes ti fied th at no cr imi nal acti v ity ha d b e e n repor

ted d ur ing hi s s hift on the nig ht he st opped A ppel lan t. Addi ti onal ly , w hen he obser v ed App ell ant walk ing acros s t he fi el d, h e di d no t s ee h i m w i th a bri c ki n hi s h an d no r d i d he s ee h i m c ar r

y i ng a ny i te ms common t o burg lar ies
. It w as not unti l after Car ri ll o made c ontact w it h Appe ll ant t hat h e obser v ed g las sy

eyes and s haki ness w hic h l ead hi m to b eli ev e tha t Ap pel lan t mi g ht be under the influ ence of alc ohol or narcot ic s. Al thoug h ti me of da y and the lev el of cr imi nal acti v ity i n an area may

be fact ors t o 5 co n sid e r in deter mini ng reason abl e s uspi ci on, t hey are notsu spi ci ous in and of themse lv es. See K

lar e v . St ate , 76 S.W .3d 6 8, 73 -7 6 ( Tex .App.
– Ho u st o n [14 th D is t.] 2002, pet. re f’d)
. See al so Scott v

. St ate , 549 S.W .2d 170 , 172 -73 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 76). Time of day

and cr imi nal activi ty

i n the area are facts w hic h focus on t he s uspects surrou n d in gs, and not o n the su spect hi msel f. Klare , 76 S.W .3d a t 75. Thus , an ass ess ment of the sur ro undi ng s mus t rais e a sus pic ion that the parti cul ar i ndi v idu al bei ng sto pped i s e ng ag ed i n w ro ng doi ng . Id. at75 , c it in g U. S. v . C or tez , 449 U .S. 411, 418, 101 S.Ct. 69 0, 66 L.Ed .2d 621 (1981 ). Off icer Carri llo did notof fer any testimo ny to raise s us pi c i on t ha t Ap pe l l an t w as e ng ag ed i n c r i mi na l a cti v i ty p r i or t o i ni ti at i ng c on ta ct w i th h i m. Add itiona lly , the re a re n o inde pen den t indicia of rea sona ble suspicion in the record before us. U nder

the total ity

of the c ircums tanc es, w e find that the fact ors c it ed by C ar ri ll o, i .e., ti me of day

and “recent ” cr ime in the a re a, were a mere pretext for sto ppi ng Appel lan t.11

Al thoug h we find that Appel lan t was il leg all y deta ine d in v iol ati on of hi s c onst it uti onal rig hts, we nevertheless agree w ith the State thatthe m eth am p het am ine w as ad missible b e c a u s e i twa s d i s c o v e re d s u b s e q u e n tt o O ffi c e r C a r r i l l o ’ s d i s c o v e r

y o f a n outs tandi ng w ar ra nt for

cr imi nal tres pass . Und er the atten uati on doctr ine , ev ide nce maybe a dmitted if the con nect ion be tw een the initial ill egality and the m ean s through w hich th e evidence w as sec ured is so attenu ated as to diss ipa te t he ta int
. See Welc om e v . St ate , 865 S. W .2d 128, 133 ( Tex .App. –Da ll a s 1 9 9 3, pe t. re f’d) ; Ree d v . St ate , 809 S.W .2d 9 40, 9 44- 45 (Tex .App. –Da ll as 1991, no pet .)
. The di sc ov er y of an outsta ndi ng war ra nt du ri ng an i ll eg al det ent ion m ay brea k the con nect ion be tw een the prim arytaint an d sub sequen tly dis cov ered ev iden ce. See Johnso n v . St ate , 496 S.W .2d 72, 74 (Tex.Crim.App . 197 3). See al so Fletcher

v. Sta te , 90 S.W .3d 4 19, 4 20- 21 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2002, no pet .)
. Off ic er C ar ri ll o tes ti fied th at he be lie ved he ran a cr imi nal hi sto ry ch eck after A p p e l lan t had alre a d y b e e n a r re s t e d
. H e a l s o t e s t i fi e d t h a ti n h i s e ffo rtt o i d e n t i fy Appel lan t, he di sc ov ered th e war ra n t, a nd App ell ant was “g oin g to g o to jai l” for t he w ar ra nt. The methamphe tami ne was not dis cov ered until Appell ant w as searched inc ide nt to hi s a rrestat the p oli ce depar tment. The record s uppor ts admiss ib ili ty of the methampheta mine as itwas dis cov ered subseq uent to t he out sta ndi ng w ar ra nt. The mari huana, how ev er , woul d nothav e been admis si ble becau se itw as dis cov ered dur ing an illegal dete ntion and prior to discovery of the criminal trespass w arrant. Appe llant’s sole is sue is ov er ru led
.12 Conclusion W e f ind th at Of

f icer Car ri ll o ill egally

deta ined Appe llant w ithou t reason able suspi cio n. Reg ardle ss , we c oncl ude t hat d is cov er y of the c ri minal trespas s war ra nt for Appel lan t pr ior

to dis cov er

y of the methamphetami ne prov ide d suff ic ien t attenuat ion so as to render the methamphet amine admis si ble
. Acc ordin g ly , the tri al cour t did not abu se it s di s c re t i o n i n d e n y i n g A p p e l l a n t ’ s m o t i o n t o s u p p re s s e v i d e n c e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice
Publ is h.