## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO

. PD

- 0170

- 22

JA MES CALVIN MASSE Y, A ppellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE ’ S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE SE CO ND C OURT OF APPEALS

TARRANT COUNTY

N EWELL, J.

, file d a concurring opi nion in which H ERVEY

, R ICHAR DS ON and M C C LURE

, JJ., joined

.

I a g r e e with t h e C o u r t t h a t t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s e r r e d t o r e v e r s e

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

. B u t I w o u l d

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

d i r e c t b a s i s

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

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

. I m m e d i a t e l y p r i o r t oMassey Concurring

— 2

t h e s e i z u r e

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

, “ t hat’s

n o t m i n e

. ” N e v e r t h e l e s s

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

d o c t r i n e d i d n o t a p p l y

, 1 a n d w e g r a n t e d r e v i e w t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r i t

d i d

. 2 I would a n s w e r t h a t q u e s t i o n a n d h o l d t h a t t h e p l a i n v i e w

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

s e i z u r e o f t h e d r u g s i n t h i s c a s e r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r A p p e l l a n t ’ s

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

i l l e g a l p a t

- d o w n

.

W h a t a p e r s o n k n o w i n g l y e x p o s e s t o t h e p u b l i c i s n o t a subje c t o f

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

. 3 T h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t g e n e r a l l y

d o e s n o t a p p l y t o s e i z u r e s o f c o n t r a b a n d found i n a p u b l i c p l a c e

because t h e r e i s n o e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y

. 4 I t i s w e l l

- s e t t l e d

, a s t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s o b s e r v e d

, “ t h a t o b j e c t s s u c h a s

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

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

. ” 5 O b j e c t s f a l l i n g i n t h e p l a i n v i e w o f a n

1 Massey v. State , 649 S.W.3d 500, 521 (T ex. App.

— Fort Worth 2022).

2 The Court gr anted the State ’ s third gro un d of review which ask ed: Is an officer in a public

place not in a “ lawful place” unde r a plain view analy sis merely because a F our th

Amendment violation occ urred ?

3 Unit ed St ate s v. Santana , 427 U.S. 38, 42 (1976).

4 Stat e v. Be tts , 397 S.W.3d 198, 2 03 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2013).

5 P ayton v. New Y ork , 445 U.S. 573, 586

- 87 (1980)

.Massey Concurring

— 3

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

s u b j e c t t o s e i z u r e a n d m a y b e i n t r o d u c e d i n e v i d e n c e

. 6

I n t h i s c a s e

, t h e p u b l i c natur e o f t h e a r e a w h e r e S g t

. L u k o w s k y

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

. And S g t

. L u k o w s k y had the l a w f u l

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

. N e v e r t h e l e s s

, t h e

cou rt o f a p p e a l s h e l d t h a t S g t

. L u k o w s k y w a s n o t i n a l a w f u l v a n t a g e

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

. 7

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

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

, S t a t e v

.

B i s h o p

. 8 U n p u b l i s h e d c a s e s d o n o t c o n s t i t u t e p r e c e d e n t a n d c a n n o t b e

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

. 9 M o r e i m p o r t a n t l y

, B i s h o p i n v o l v e d a s e i z u r e o f

d r u g s f r o m a d e f e n d a n t ’ s p o c k e t s

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

p l a c e

. 10 T h u s

, B i s h o p i s significantly d i f f e r e n t f r o m this c a s e e v e n i f i t

c o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d p r e c e d e n t

.

6 H arris v. United States , 390 U.S. 234, 236 (1968)

.

7 Massey

, 649 S .W.3d a t 51 9

.

8 Id. at 5 20 (citing S tate v. Bishop

, No. 13

- 16

- 00322

- CR, 2017 WL 10896881 (Tex. A pp

— Corpu s Ch ri st i 2017, no pet.) ( not designated for publication) ).

9 Tex. R. App. P. 47.7 (a ) ( “ Cr im i nal Cases : Op i nions and memor andum opi nio ns not

designated for publ ication by the court of appeals under these or prior rules have no

precedential value but may be c ited with the notation, ‘ (not designated for publication)

. ’ ” ).

10 Bishop , 2017 WL 108968 8 1 at *1.Massey Concurring

— 4

Y e t i n r e l y i n g o n B i s h o p

, t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a p p e a r s t o have

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

. S t a t e

. I n that c a s e

, w e

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

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

e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n a n o b j e c t i n p l a i n v i e w o f t h e p u b l i c

. 11 A s

s u c h i t would p r o v i d e a n i n d e p e n d e n t j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e s e i z u r e i n

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

e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e

. 12 A s w e e x p l a i n e d i n W a l t e r

, “ [ t ] h e S u p r e m e C o u r t

h a s e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e “ p l a i n v i e w ” d o c t r i n e i s n o t r e a l l y a n “ e x c e p t i o n ”

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

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

r e a s o n a b l e

. ” 13 I f A p p e l l a n t h a d n o e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n t h e a r e a

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

, t h e r e i s n o r e a s o n t o a d d r e s s w h e t h e r

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

. 14

11 Walter v. State

, 28 S.W.3d 5 38, 541 (200 0).

12 See Utah v . Strieff , 579 U .S. 232 , 237

- 38 (2016) (noting the attenuation doctrine as an

exception to an appl ication of the exclusionary rule).

13 Walter , 28 S.W.3d at 541 (citing Texas v. Brown , 4 6 0 U.S. 730 , 738

- 39 (1983).

14 This approach appears consistent with t hat taken by the trial judge who noted at the

hearing on the motion to suppress that the drugs at issue were not discovered by a search

n or recovered by S t ate action.Massey Concurring

— 5

H e r e

, t h e r e i s n o q u e s t i o n t h e o f f i c e r w h o s e i z e d t h e d r u g s

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

. 15 H i s p r e s e n c e t h e r e d i d n o t b e c o m e

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

- d o w n o r A p p e l l a n t ’ s a t t e m p t t o a v o i d t h e

s e a r c h

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

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

p r i v a t e c i t i z e n

. 17 N e i t h e r should a n o f f i c e r b e r e q u i r e d t o l e a v e d r u g s

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

. B e c a u s e t h i s

w a r r a n t l e s s s e i z u r e w a s j u s t i f i e d u n d e r t h e p l a i n

- v i e w d o c t r i n e

, I w o u l d

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

b a s i s

.

W i t h t h e s e t h o u g h t s

, I c o n c u r

.

F i l e d : April 26, 2023

P u b l i s h

15 Mass ey , 64 8 S.W.3 d a t 512 ( “ Massey does n ot dispute that Offic er Lukowsky was initially

justified in detaining him for a traffic offe nse

. ” )

16 W alter

, 28 S.W.3d at 544 ( holding that officer lawfully vi ewed mari juana in the

def endant ’ s car purs uant to a valid investi gatory d e t ention) ; see also Mas sey , 648 S.W.3d

at 51 3 ( h olding that the inves tigatory detention in this case was not un duly pro longed ).

17 Walter , 28 S.W.3d at 54 4 (quoting Brown

, 460 U.S. at 7 40 ).