## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TE XAS

N O

. P D

- 1 6 4 1

- 1 5

B R A D L E Y R A Y M c C L I N T O C K

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

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

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

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

H A R R I S C O U N T Y

Y E A R Y

, J

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

, P

. J

. , a n d

K E A S L E R

, H E R V E Y

, R IC H A R D S O N

, K E E L a n d W A L K E R

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. A L C A L A

, J

. , f i l e d a

d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n

. N E W E L L

, J

. , d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e

.

O P I N I O N

T h i s c a s e i n v o l v e s t h e p r o p e r c o n s t r u c t i o n o f A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b ) o f t h e T e x a s C o d e o f

C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e

, t h e s t a t u t o r y g o o d

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

.

T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. a r t

. 3 8

. 2 3 ( b )

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

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

. M c C l i n t o c k v

. S t a t e

, 4 4 4 S

. W

. 3 d 1 5 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 4 )

. A t t h a t

t i m e

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

, i n t h e f i r s tMcClintock — 2

i n s t a n c e

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

- m a d e

g o o d

- f a i t h e x c e p t i o n t o t h e f

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

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

, 5 6 4 U

. S

. 2 2 9

( 2 0 1 1 )

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

- f a i t h

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

. W e o b s e r v e d t h a t a r e m a n d w a s “ t h e p r o p e r

d i s p o s i t i o n ” o f o u r f

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

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

. . . w o u l d b e n e f i t f r o m a c a r e f

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

r o m t h e

c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

. ” 4 4 4 S

. W

. 3 d a t 2 0

- 2 1

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

.

M c C l i n t o c k v

. S t a t e

, 4 8 0 S

. W

. 3 d 7 3 4 ( T e x

. A p p

. — H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t

. ] 2 0 1 5 )

. T h e S t a t e a g a i n

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

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

, w h i c h w e g r a n t e d

.

B A C K G R O U N D

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

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

. M c C l i n t o c k

, 4 4 4

S

. W

. 3 d a t 1 6

- 1 7

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

. S u f

f i c e i t t o s a y

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

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

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

. P o l i c e t o o k a d r u g

- s n i f f i n g d o g t o

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

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

.

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

i s s u e d

. C h a r g e d w i t h p o s s e s s i o n o f a f e l o n y a m o u n t o f

m a r i j u a n a

, A p p e l l a n t f

i l e d a m o t i o n

t o s u p p r e s s t h e c o n t r a b a n d

, c o n t e n d i n g t h a t i t h a d b e e n o b t a i n e d u n d e r a s e a r c h w a r r a n t t h a t

w a s n o t s u p p o r t e d b y p r o b a b l e c a u s e

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

t h e s e a r c h

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

, a n d t h a t

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

r o mMcClintock — 3

t h e w a r r a n t a f

f i d a v i t

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

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

. S p e c i f i c a l l y

,

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

a d r u g

- s n i f

f i n g d o g

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

- g o t t e n i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t

a f f i d a v i t

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n

, e x p r e s s l y h o l d i n g t h a t t h e p o l i c e d o g h a d n o t

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

,

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

p u r p o s e s

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

, p r e s e r v i n g h i s r i g h t t o a p p e a l t h e

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

.

W h i l e t h e c a s e w a s p e n d i n g o n a p p e a l

, 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 d e c i d e d

F l o r i d a v

. J

a r d i n e s

, 1 3 3 S

. C t

. 1 4 0 9 ( 2 0 1 3 )

. O n t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h a t o p i n i o n

, t h e c o u r t o f

a p p e a l s r e v e r s e d A p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n

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

a c t

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

, a n d t h a t

, 1

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

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

c a u s e t o s u p p o r t t h e w a r r a n t

. M c C l i n t o c k v

. S t a t e

, 4 0 5 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 7 ( T e x

. A p p

. — H o u s t o n [ 1 s t

D i s t

. ] 2 0 1 3 )

. T h e S t a t e f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

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

. F o r t h e f i r s t t i m e

, t h e S t a t e

a r g u e d t h a t

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

a r d i n e s

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

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

.

On simil ar fac ts, this Court rec ently held the same. See State v. Rendon

, 477 S.W .3d 805, 1

811 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (“A pply ing the Supreme Court’s re asoning in Jardines to the fac ts of

this case

, we conclude that, by bring ing a drug -dete ction dog direc tly up to appellee ’s front door for

the purpose of conducting a canine -nar cotics sniff, the office rs phy sically intruded upon the curtilag e

of appellee ’s home in a manner that exceede d the scope of any express or implied lice nse, and any

evidenc e obtained as a result of that trespass was obtained in violation of the Four th Amendment.”)

.McClintock — 4

I n v o k i n g t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n i n D a v i s

, t h e S t a t e a r g u e d t h a t

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

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

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

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

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

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

s t a t u t o r y e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e e m b o d i e d i n A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( a ) o f t h e T e x a s C o d e o f C r i m i n a l

P r o c e d u r e

. W e r e m a n d e d t h e c a u s e t o t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s t o a d d r e s s t h i s c o n t e n t i o n i n t h e 2

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

. M c C l i n t o c k v

. S t a t e

, 4 4 4 S

. W

. 3 d 1 5

, 2 0

- 2 1 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 4 )

.

O n r e m a n d

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

3 8

. 2 3 ( b ) ’ s g o o d

- f

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

. T h e m a j o r i t y h e l d t h a t t h e 3

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

Subsection (a) of Article 38.23 rea ds: 2

(a) No evidenc e obtained by an o ff i ce r o r other person in violation of any

provisions of the Constit ution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constit ution or

laws of the United States of Americ a, shall be admitted in evidenc e ag ainst the

acc used on the trial of

any criminal ca se.

I n any case wher e the leg al evidenc e raises an issue here under, the jury shall

b e i n s t ru ct ed that if it believes, or has a rea sonable doubt, that the evidenc e was

obtained in violation of the provisions of this Article, then and in such event, the jury

shall disreg ard a

ny such evide nce so obta ined.

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 38.23(a ).

Subsection (b) of A rticle 38.23 re ads: 3

(b) I t is an ex ception t o t h e provisions of S ubsection (a) of this Article that

the evidenc e was obtained by a law enfor ceme nt office r acting in objective g ood faith

relianc e upon a w arr ant issue by a neutr al mag istrate base d on probable cause

.

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 38.23(b)

.McClintock — 5

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

. ” M c C l i n t o c k

, 4 8 0 S

. W

. 3 d a t

7 4 2

- 4 4

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

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

i t s e l f w a s t a i n t e d b y a n i l l e g a l i t y

. I d

. O n i t s f

a c e

, t h e m a

j o r i t y e x p l a i n e d

, A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b )

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

, a n d s o

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

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

. I d

. T h e m a

j o r i t y w e n t o n t o s a y t h a t

,

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

r o m t h e w a r r a n t a f

f i d a v i t

, i n s u f

f i c i e n t

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

. I d

. T h e r e f o r e

, t h e m a

j o r i t y c o n c l u d e d

, t h e

g o o d

- f a i t h e x c e p t i o n e m b o d i e d i n S u b s e c t i o n ( b ) d i d n o t a p p l y

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

w a s a p p r o p r i a t e u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( a )

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

e v i d e n c e

. I

d

.

T h e d i s s e n t i n g j u s t i c e d i s a g r e e d

. I d

. a t 7 4 4

- 5 4 ( K e y e s

, J

. , d i s s e n t i n g )

. S h e b e l i e v e d

i t w o u l d b e j u s t a s f

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

, s o l o n g a s

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

a f f i d a v i t w a s i t

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

a i t h

, t h e n t h e e v i d e n c e w a s “ o b t a i n e d

. . . i n g o o d

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

. . . b a s e d o n p r o b a b l e c a u s e [

, ] ” a n d e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d p u r s u a n t

t o t h e w a r r a n t n e e d n o t b e e x c l u d e d

. I d

. T h a t i s t o s a y

, s o l o n g a s t h e p o l i c e h a d a g o o d

- f a i t h

b a s i s t o b e l i e v e

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

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

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

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

3 8

. 2 3 ( a ) s h o u l d n o t a p p l y

. I d

. S u c h a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

, J u s t i c e K e y e s b e l i e v e d

, w o u l d b r i n g t h eMcClintock — 6

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

a n n o u n c e d i n D a v i s

. I

d

.

W e g r a n t e d t h e S t a t e ’ s s e c o n d p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w i n o r d e r t o r e s o l v e t h i s

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

y t h e r e a c h o f A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b )

. B o i l e d d o w n

, t h e q u e s t i o n i s t h i s : H o w

s h o u l d A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b ) a p p l y

, i f a t a l l

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

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

A N A L Y S I S

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

P r i o r t o t h e a d v e n t o f

A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3

, t h i s C o u r t h a d r e c o g n i z e d n o s t a t e e x c l u s i o n a r y

r e m e d y i n T e x a s

. W

e l c h e k v

. S t a t e

, 9 3 T e x

. C r i m

. 2 7 1

, 2 4 7 S

. W

. 5 2 4 ( 1 9 2 2 )

. W e s t i l l h a v e

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

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

i s

, t h e r e f o r e

, p u r e l y a f

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

. W h i l e A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 t o s o m e

e x t e n t “ m i r r o r s ” t h e f

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

, M i l e s v

. S t a t e

, 2 4 1 S

. W

. 3 d 2 8

, 3 2 ( T e x

. C r i m

.

A p p

. 2 0 0 7 )

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

, a n d w e a r e n o t f r e e t o g r a f

t a d d i t i o n s o r a l t e r a t i o n s t o t h e

s t a t u t e a t o u r p l e a s u r e

, i n t h e n a m e o f p o l i c y

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

. T h e

p r o p e r s c o p e o f A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( a ) ’ s e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e i s a q u e s t i o n o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n

.

S t a t e v

. D a u g h e r t

y

, 9 3 1 S

. W

. 2 d 2 6 8

, 2 7 0 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 6 ) ; W e h r e n b e r g v

. S t a t e

, 4 1 6

S

. W

. 3 d 4 5 8

, 4 6 8

- 7 0 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 3 )

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

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

, s u c h a s A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b ) ’ s g o o d

- f a i t h e x c e p t i o n

, i s l i k e w i s e a q u e s t i o n o f

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

. S e e B a k e r v

. S t a t e

, 9 5 6 S

. W

. 2 d 1 9

, 2 3 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 7 )McClintock — 7

( “ [ W ] h e t h e r a r e c o g n i z e d e x c e p t i o n t o a f e d e r a l e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e a l s o a p p l i e s t o A r t i c l e

3 8

. 2 3 d e p e n d s u p o n w h e t h e r t h e e x c e p t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e l a n g u a g e o f A r t i c l e

3 8

. 2 3

. ” )

.

T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n D a v i s d e a l t w i t h t h e g o o d

- f a i t h e x c e p t i o n t o t h e

f e d e r a l

, c o u r t

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

. T h e q u e s t i o n i n D a v i s w a s w h e t h e r t o a p p l y t h e

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

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

. ” 5 6 4 U

. S

. a t 2 3 2

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

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

i s n o t s u b

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

. ” I d

. a t 2 4 1

. N o t h i n g a b o u t D a v i s ’ s h o l d i n g w i t h

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

e d e r a l e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e n e c e s s a r i l y d i c t a t e s h o w A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b ) s h o u l d b e

c o n s t r u e d

. W h e t h e r A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b ) ’ s g o o d

- f a i t h e x c e p t i o n s h o u l d a p p l y t o t h e f a c t s o f t h e

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

. C o n s e q u e n t l y

, w e m u s t d e c i d e w h e t h e r

,

w h e n t h e L e g i s l a t u r e p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e g o o d

- f a i t h e x c e p t i o n s h o u l d a p p l y o n l y t o e x c u s e t h e

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

“ b a s e d u p o n p r o b a b l e c a u s e [

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

c a u s e t h a t w a s i t

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

c a u s e a s s e s s m e n t

.

W h e n w e c o n s t r u e A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3

, a s w i t h a n y s t a t u t e

, “ [ i ] n d i v i n i n g l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t

,

w e l o o k f

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

, ] ” a n d “ [ w ] h e n t h e m e a n i n g i s p l a i n

, w e l o o k n o

f u r t h e r

. ” D a u g h e r t

y

, 9 3 1 S

. W

. 2 d a t 2 7 0

. I t i s p l a i n e n o u g h f r o m t h e l a n g u a g e o f A r t i c l eMcClintock — 8

3 8

. 2 3 ( b ) t h a t

, b e f

o r e i t s g o o d

- f

a i t h e x c e p t i o n t o S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ’ s e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e m a y a p p l y

,

t h e r e m u s t b e ( 1 ) o b

j e c t i v e g o o d

- f

a i t h r e l i a n c e u p o n ( 2 ) a w a r r a n t ( 3 ) i s s u e d b y a n e u t r a l

m a g i s t r a t e t h a t i s ( 4 ) b a s e d u p o n p r o b a b l e c a u s e

. W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f o u r t h r e q u i r e m e n t

, w e

l o n g a g o d e c l a r e d t h a t “ [ t ] h e p l a i n w o r d i n g o f A r t [ i c l e ] 3 8

. 2 3 ( b ) r e q u i r e s a n i n i t i a l

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

. ” C u r r y v

. S t a t e

, 8 0 8 S

. W

. 2 d 4 8 1

, 4 8 2 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

.

1 9 9 1 ) ( c i t i n g G o r d o n v

. S t a t e

, 8 0 1 S

. W

. 2 d 8 9 9

, 9 1 2

- 1 3 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 0 ) ) ; s e e a l s o

G e o r g e E

. D i x & J o h n M

. S c h m o l e s k y

, 4 0 T E X A S P R A C T IC E : C R IM IN A L P R A C T IC E A N D

P R O C E D U R E § 7

. 6 7

, a t 3 9 5 ( 3 d e d

. 2 0 1 1 ) ( “ I f p r o b a b l e c a u s e i s f o u n d t o b e l a c k i n g

, A r t i c l e

3 8

. 2 3

— a l t h o u g h n o t f

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

— r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e b e

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

i s s u e d o n f

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

. ” )

. 4

F a r l e s s p l a i n f

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

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

. ” D i d t h e 5

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

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

,

n a m e l y

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

, t h e r e i s a t l e a s t

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

Moreove r, it seems plain enoug h that Article 38.23(b) does not provide a good faith 4

exception for an illega l war rantless sear ch or seizure perpe trated by the police, or for any illega l

sear ch or se izure perpe trated by an “othe r per son” for

purposes of A rticle 38.23(a ).

See Y azdchi v. State

, 428 S.W .3d 831, 847 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (Price, J

., concur ring ) 5

(“The extent to whi ch statutory lang uag e may be plain on its fac e or ambig uous is sometimes a

function of the question that is br oug ht to bear

. A g iven statutory provision will sometimes clea rly

answe r one que stion but remain hopelessly insoluble with respec t to another.” ).McClintock — 9

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

i e d l o c a t i o n ” ? F l o r e s v

. S t a t e

, 3 1 9 S

. W

. 3 d 6 9 7

, 7 0 2 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

.

2 0 1 0 ) ( c i t i n g I

l l i n o i s v

. G a t e s

, 4 6 2 U

. S

. 2 1 3 ( 1 9 8 3 ) )

. T h e r e i s n o q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e t o t a l i t y o f

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

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

s n i f f

, s u p p l i e d a m p l e p r o b a b l e c a u s e

. A l t e r n a t i v e l y

, d i d t h e L e g i s l a t u r e ’ s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f

“ p r o b a b l e c a u s e ” e m b r a c e

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

a s s u m e d

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

i l l e g a l l y o b t a i n e d i n f

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

w a r r a n t a f

f i d a v i t h a s s u p p l i e d s u f

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

y t h i s c o m m o n

- p l a c e d e f i n i t i o n

o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e ? I n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r a w a r r a n t i s “ b a s e d o n p r o b a b l e c a u s e ” f o r p u r p o s e s 6

o f i m p l e m e n t i n g A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b )

, i s i t n e c e s s a r y f o r a c o u r t t h a t i s r e v i e w i n g t h e m a g i s t r a t e ’ s

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

o r m a t i o n i n t h e w a r r a n t a f f i d a v i t t h a t w a s i t s e l f

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

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

a i t h ? T h e f

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

We have sa id that, as a princ iple of Fourth Amendment law, “ [a] sear ch wa rra nt may not 6

be procur ed lawf

u l l y b y t he use of illega lly obtained information.” State v. Cuong Phu Le

, 463

S.W .3d 872, 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (citing Brown v. State

, 605 S.W .2d 572, 577 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1980), overruled on other grounds by Hedick e v. St a t e

, 7 7 9 S .W.2d 837 (Tex. Crim. App.

1989)). This is nothing more than a particula r application of the well-known “ f r u it

- o f-the-poisonoustree ” doctrine. Way

ne R. L aF ave, 6 S E A R C H A N D S E I Z U R E : A T R E A T I S E O N T H E F O U R T H

A M E N D M E N T § 11.4(f) (5th ed. 2012); Geor g e E. Dix & J ohn M. Schmolesky

, 40 T E X A S P R A C T I C E :

C R I M I N A L P R A C T I C E A N D P R O C E D U R E § 9:2 (3d ed. 2011). I t is not altog ether clea r from the fac e of

the statute, howeve r, that the L eg islature nece ssarily meant to incorporate this Four th A mendment

principle into its definition of “proba ble cause ” in the contex t of Article 38.23(b), as the court of

appeal s appar ently believed. See McClintock

, 480 S.W .3d at 742 (“The war rant [affidavit] in this

case did not contain sufficie nt lawfully acquir ed informat i o n t o clea rly establish probable cause

without the dog- sniff evide nce.” ).McClintock — 10

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

. A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b ) d o e s n o t 7

e x p r e s s l y a d d r e s s

, m u c h l e s s p l a i n l y r e s o l v e

, t h i s c o m p l i c a t e d q u e s t i o n

.

H o w d o w e f

i l l t h e s t a t u t o r y g a p ? O u r a p p r o a c h i n t h e p a s t

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

t h e l a n g u a g e o f A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( a )

, h a s b e e n t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e L e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o

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

l a w t h a t w e h a v e f

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

, e v e n i f n o t e x p r e s s l y

s p e l l e d o u t t h e r e

. B a k e r

, 9 5 6 S

. W

. 2 d a t 2 3

. T h u s

, w e h a v e d e c l a r e d t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t

d o c t r i n e s o f “ a t t e n u a t i o n o f t a i n t ” a n d “ i n d e p e n d e n t s o u r c e ” t o a p p l y u n d e r A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( a )

,

b e c a u s e w e f

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

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

, a s t h e s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s a s a p r e d i c a t e t o

e x c l u s i o n

. J

o h n s o n v

. S t a t e

, 8 7 1 S

. W

. 2 d 7 4 4

, 7 5 0

- 5 1 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 4 ) ; W e h r e n b e r g

,

4 1 6 S

. W

. 3 d a t 4 7 3

. B y c o n t r a s t

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

c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e o f A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( a )

, b e c a u s e t h a t d o c t r i n e a s s u m e s t h a t

e v i d e n c e h a s b e e n “ o b t a i n e d ” i l l e g a l l y

, a n d w o u l d a d m i t i t a n y w a y

. D a u g h e r t y

, 9 3 1 S

. W

. 2 d

a t 2 7 1

. I n e x a m i n i n g t h e s c o p e o f A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b ) ’ s g o o d

- f a i t h e x c e p t i o n t o A r t i c l e

3 8

. 2 3 ( a ) ’ s e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e

, t h e r e f o r e

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

For a dis cussion of t he conflicting feder al case l aw with respe ct t o whether to extend the 7

g ood-fa ith exception to case s involving an illega l predic ate sear ch, see Andre w Z

. L ipson, Note: The

Good Fai t h Exc eption as Applied to Illegal Predicate Searche s: A Free Pass to Institutional

Ignorance

, 60 H A S T I N G S L .J

. 1147, 1156-66 (May 2009), and Aly son M. Cox

, Note: Does It Stay,

or Does It Go?: Application of the Good-Faith Exc eption W hen the W arrant Re lied Upon Is Fruit

of the Poisonous Tree , 72 W A S H

. & L E E L

. R E V . 1505, 1515-33 (Summer 2015). T hose ca ses will

be discussed in the te x t and in footnotes, post

.McClintock — 11

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

- f a i t h ” e x c e p t i o n

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

.

T h e G o o d F a i t h D o c t r i n e a n d F r u i t o f t h e P o i s o n o u s T r e e

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

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

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

, i n d e p e n d e n t s o u r c e

, a n d i n e v i t a b l e 8 9

d i s c o v e r y

. I t i s a r e l a t i v e l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d t a s k f

o r t h i s C o u r t t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r A r t i c l e 1 0

3 8

. 2 3 c a n a c c o m m o d a t e t h o s e d o c t r i n e s a s d e f i n i t i v e l y a r t i c u l a t e d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t

. B u t

t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s y e t t o a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n o f h o w t h e f r u i t

- o f

- t h e

- p o i s o n o u s

- t r e e

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

- f a i t h e x c e p t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d b y U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. L e o n

,

4 6 8 U

. S

. 8 9 7 ( 1 9 8 4 )

. T h e l o w e r f e d e r a l c o u r t s a r e n o t e n t i r e l y o f o n e m i n d o n t h i s q u e s t i o n

, 1 1

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

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

.

T h e N i n t h

, T e n t h

, a n d E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t s h a v e t a k e n a h a r d l i n e

. T h e y s e e m t o h a v e

h e l d t h a t L e o n ’ s g o o d

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

Brown v. Illinois , 422 U.S. 590 (1975). 8

Segura v. United States

, 4 6 8 U. S

. 7 96 (1984); Murray v. United States

, 487 U.S. 533 9

(1988).

Nix v. W

illiams , 467 U.S. 431 (1984). 1 0

See J anine L

. Hockbe rg

, Note: Dining in Good Faith on Poisonous Fruit? , 15 W I D E N E R 1 1

L

. R E V

. 301, 30 2 (2009) (“One of t he unsettl ed area s left by [ United St ates v. L eon

, 468 U.S. 897

(1984),] involved h o w the g ood-fa ith exception was meant to interac t with the poisonous fruit

doctrine wher e police rec eived a war rant based upon evidenc e found in an inadver tently illega l

sear ch or se izure.”).McClintock — 12

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

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

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

, a n d h e n c e t a i n t e d

, b y s o m e p r i o r i l l e g a l i t y

. O n 1 2

t h e o t h e r h a n d

, t h e S e c o n d C i r c u i t h a s v e n t u r e d t o t h e o p p o s i t e e x t r e m e a s t h e N i n t h

, T e n t h

,

a n d E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t s

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

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

. T h e s e c a s e s w e r e 1 3

United States v. Vasey

, 834 F.2d 782, 789 (9th Cir. 1987) (“We there fore conclude that a 1 2

mag istrate’s consideration does not protec t from ex clusion evidenc e seiz ed duri n g a s earch under

a war rant if that war

rant was based on evidenc e seized in a n unconstitutional sea

rch. Acc ording ly

, the g ood faith exception should not and will not be applied to the fac ts of this case .”); United States

v. Scales

, 903 F.2d 765, 767-68 (10th Cir. 1990) (re fusing to a pply Leon ’s g ood-fa ith e x ception to

justify sear ch of lugg ag e with a war rant when the war

rant was predic ated on an illega l seizure of that

lugg ag e to conduct a dog sniff); United States v. McG ough

, 412 F.3d 1232, 1239-40 (11th Cir. 2005)

(conc luding that Leon ’s g ood-fa ith exception “is not applicable ” when the sear ch war rant was itself

tainted with information in the war rant affi d av i t that was obtained by virtue of a prior illega lity ).

Severa l states have taken a simil ar hard- line approa ch. See State v. Carter

, 69 Ohio St.3d 57, 68, 630

N.E.2d 355, 364 (1994) (“The g ood-fa ith exception does not apply wher e a sear ch war rant is issued

on the basis of e vidence obtained as a r esult of an illeg al sea rch.” ); People v . Machupa , 7 Cal.4th

614, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 775, 872 P.2d 114 (1994) (same) ; State v. DeW itt

, 184 Ariz. 464, 469-70, 910

P.2d 9, 14-15 (1996) (re

jecting g ood-fa ith exception based upon a sear ch war rant wher e information

supply ing probable cause for the war rant was itself unconstitutionally obtained); State v. Reno

, 260

Kan. 117, 129, 918 P.2d 1235, 1243 (1996) (the Leon g ood-fa ith exception does not apply beca use

“[t] he admissibili ty of the evidenc e depends not on the g ood faith of the seizing office rs but, rathe r,

on the source of the infor mation used to obtain the sear ch wa rra nt”).

I n a ca se striking ly

simil ar to this one, poli ce took a drug- sniffing dog onto the curtilag e 1 3

of the defe ndant ’s ap ar t ment. United States v. Thomas

, 757 F.2d 1359, 1366 (2d Cir. 1985). The

Second Circuit he ld tha t the dog sniff constituted an unconstitutional sea rch. Id

. at 1367. I t f

urther

conclude d that, absent the dog ’s positive aler t for drug s, the war

rant aff idavit was insufficient to

supply probable cause

. Id

. at 1368. The court turned next to the applicability of the Leon g ood-fa ith

exception. I t held that the mag istrate’s approva l of the war rant was sufficie nt to rende r any evidenc e

deriving from the ultimate sear ch of the apar tment, though tainted by a war rant that, absent the dog

sniff information, lacke d probable cause

, never theless not subject to the exclusionary rule. Id

. The

court observe d: “The re is nothing m o re t h e office r could or should have done under these

circ umstances to be sure his se arc h [of the apar tment] would be leg al. The mag istrate, whose duty

it is to interpre t the law, deter mined that the canine sniff could form the basis for probable cause ; it

was rea sonable for the office r to rely on this deter mination.” Id

. See also United States v. Carmona

, 858 F.2d 66, 68 (2d Cir. 1988) (illeg ally intrusive “sec urity swee p” uncover ed information that wentMcClintock — 13

d e c i d e d r e l a t i v e l y e a r l y

, h o w e v e r

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

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

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

.

I n a p r o g r e s s i o n o f o p i n i o n s

, t h e E i g h t h C i r c u i t h a s h e l d t h a t t h e g o o d

- f a i t h e x c e p t i o n

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

b y a p r i o r i l l e g a l i t y

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

- f a i t h

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

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

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

. T h e F i r s t C i r c u i t h a s h e l d s i m i l a r l y

, 1 4

into a war rant a ffidavit, but the off

icer s who ex ecute d the warrant nonetheless acted i n g ood-fa ith

relianc e on the mag istrate’s f inding of probable cause , notwithstanding the pr ior illeg ality ).

I n United St ates v. W

hite

, 890 F.2d 1413, 1419 (8th Cir. 1989), DEA a g ents at t he S aint 1 4

L ouis airport ill eg ally detained the defe ndant’s lugg ag e in order to have a drug dog sniff his bag s.

Neve rtheless, the question whether the officers had rea sonable suspicion to seize the l ug g ag e was

deeme d “close enoug h to the line of validity ” that the mag istrate’s approva l of a war rant predic ated

on the dog sniff rende red the police conduct in r ely ing on the war rant “objec tively rea sonable” for

Leon purposes, notwithstanding the prior illega lity

. Id

. To the same eff ect is the Eig hth Circuit’s

opinion in United States v. Kiser

, 948 F.2d 418, 422 (8th Cir. 1991). And ag ain, in United States v.

Fletche r

, 91 F.3d 48, 52 (8th Cir. 1996), under simil ar circ umstances, the Eig hth Circuit once ag ain

applied the g ood-fa ith exception. Thoug h the court found a lack of rea sonable suspicion to seize the

defe ndant’s bagfor a

dog sniff, it never

theless conc luded:

Considering all circ umstances, we ag ree with the district c ourt that the office rs had

an objectively rea sonable belief that they possessed a rea sonable suspicion as would

support t h e v al i d d etention of Fletc her’ s bag as well as an objectively rea sonable

belief that the war

rant issued was valid. * * * The purpose of the exclusionary rule,

deter renc e of police misconduct, will not be serve d by its application to this case.

Id

.McClintock — 14

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

f i d a v i t

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

. 1 5

M o r e r e c e n t l y

, t h e S i x t h a n d F i f t h C i r c u i t s h a v e w e i g h e d i n

. T h e S i x t h C i r c u i t f o r t h e

f i r s t t i m e e x p l i c i t l y f

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

e s t a b l i s h e d i n L e o n

. . . w i t h t h e ‘ f r u i t o f t h e p o i s o n o u s t r e e ’ d o c t r i n e [

. ] ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v

.

M c C l a i n

, 4 4 4 F

. 3 d 5 5 6

, 5 6 4 ( 6 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 5 )

. I n M c C l a i n

, p o l i c e c o n d u c t e d a n i l l e g a l

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

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

.

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

, s u s p e c t i n g a

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

. I d

. a t

5 6 0

. T h e S i x t h C i r c u i t a f f i r m e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t t h a t t h e i n i t i a l e n t r y a n d s e a r c h

w e r e i l l e g a l

. I

d

. a t 5 6 4

. I t t u r n e d n e x t t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h a t t a i n t s h o u l d r e n d e r t h e

s e c o n d o f

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

o f t h e g o o d

- f

a i t h e x c e p t i o n

. I

d

. I t c o n c l u d e d t h a t “ t h i s i s o n e o f t h e u n i q u e c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e

L e o n g o o d

- f

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

. ” I d

.

a t 5 6 5

. L i k e t h e E i g h t h C i r c u i t i n W h i t e

, t h e S i x t h C i r c u i t f

o u n d t h a t “ t h e f

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

t h e i n i t i a l F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t v i o l a t i o n w e r e ‘ c l o s e e n o u g h t o t h e l i n e o f v a l i d i t y t o m a k e t h e

The prior illega lity in United States v. Diehl

, 276 F.3d 32, 41 (1st Cir. 2002), was an illega l 1 5

entry onto the curtilag e of a rura l proper ty in order to observe ci rc u m s t ances sug g esting that

marijuana was being cultivated. I n decla ring the prior illega lity insufficient to defe at application of

the good-fa ith exception to the ex clusionary rule, the court observed that snow on the ground had

contri b u t ed t o the office r’s failure to note the hallmarks of curtilag e, and that the circ umstances

under which he had enter ed the proper ty wer e “fa ithfully set forth” in the war rant aff idavit. Id

. at 43.

The c ourt held that “the reme dy of exclusion in thi s instance is inappropr iate.” Id

.McClintock — 15

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

. ” I d

. a t 5 6 6 ( q u o t i n g

W h i t e

, 8 9 0 F

. 2 d a t 1 4 1 9 )

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

. F i r s t

,

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

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

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

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

. I d

. S e c o n d a n d t h i r d

, a n d “ [ m ] o r e i m p o r t a n t l y

,

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

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

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

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

. ”

I d

. A l l o f t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o m b i n e d t o c o n v i n c e t h e S i x t h C i r c u i t t h a t “ t h e L e o n

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

. ” I d

.

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

, a n d d r a w i n g h e a v i l y o n M c C a i n

, t h e F i f

t h

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

- f a i t h d o c t r i n e a n d t h e f

r u i t

- o f

t h e

- p o i s o n o u s

- t r e e d o c t r i n e i n t h i s w a y :

W e a d o p t t h e f

o l l o w i n g r e a s o n i n g

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

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

e x c e p t i o n

, a s e a c h a p p l [ i e s ] t o e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d a s t h e r e s u l t o f t h e e x e c u t i o n

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

. T w o s e p a r a t e r e q u i r e m e n t s m u s t b e m e t f o r e v i d e n c e t o

b e a d m i s s i b l e : ( 1 ) t h e p r i o r l a w e n f o r c e m e n t c o n d u c t t h a t u n c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e

u s e d i n t h e a f

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

v a l i d i t y ’ t h a t a n o b

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

f i d a v i t o r

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

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

, a n d ( 2 ) t h e r e s u l t i n g

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

o f f i c e r i n g o o d f

a i t h a s p r e s c r i b e d b y L e o n

.McClintock — 16

U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. Ma s s i

, 7 6 1 F

. 3 d 5 1 2

, 5 2 8 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 4 )

. T h e c o u r t u l t i m a t e l y c o n c l u d e d : 1 6

T h e g o o d f

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

w a r r a n t

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

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

, w a s o b t a i n e d a n d e x e c u t e d b y a l a w

e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f i c e r i n g o o d f

a i t h a n d u n d e r a n o b

j e c t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e b e l i e f

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

.

I d

. a t 5 3 2 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

.

T w o y e a r s l a t e r

, a f

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

, t h e F i f t h

C i r c u i t r e i t e r a t e d t h e h o l d i n g i n Ma s s i

, a p p l y i n g i t t o f a c t s s t r i k i n g l y s i m i l a r t o t h o s e i n t h i s

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

- f a i t h e x c e p t i o n

. I n U

n i t e d S t a t e s

v

. H o l l e y

, 8 3 1 F

. 3 d 3 2 2

, 3 2 6

- 2 7 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 6 )

, p o l i c e u s e d a d r u g

- s n i f f i n g d o g t o d e t e c t t h e

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

, a n d w h e n t h e d o g a l e r t e d

, t h e y

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

. I d

. a t 3 2 4

. T h e d e f

e n d a n t

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

, a n d t h a t t h e L e o n g o o d

- f a i t h e x c e p t i o n

t h e r e f o r e c o u l d n o t a p p l y

. I

d

. a t 3 2 6

. T h e F i f

t h C i r c u i t f

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

b y M a s s i

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

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

T h e Fifth Circuit reje cted McCain ’s sug g estion that the office r executing the war rant 1 6

nece ssarily oug ht to be differ ent than the office r who committed the prior illega lity

. Massi

, 761 F.3d

at 528. The F ifth Circuit observed, a nd we a g ree , that

[w] hat i s important is that the officer presenting the i nformation to a magistrate be

objectively rea sonable in c oncluding that the information being used to suppor t the

war rant was not tainted. I t is not awa rene ss of the exis tence of the conduct that later

is found to be improper that is important, but awa rene ss at the time of prese nting the

aff idavit that the conduct violated constitut i onal rig hts that would aff ect the

application of the g ood faith exception.

Id

.McClintock — 17

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

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

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

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

. I

d

. a t 3 2 6

- 2 7

. W e r e g a r d t h e F i f t h C i r c u i t ’ s

p r o n o u n c e m e n t i n M

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

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

- o f

- t h e

- p o i s o n o u s

- t r e e d o c t r i n e a n d t h e g o o d

f a i t h e x c e p t i o n t o t h e f

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

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

, t h e n

, i s

w h e t h e r t h e l a n g u a g e o f A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b ) w i l l a c c o m m o d a t e i t

. W e h o l d t h a t i t d o e s

.

A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b )

A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( a ) ’ s e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e d o e s n o t a p p l y w h e n t h e c h a l l e n g e d “ e v i d e n c e

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

f i c e r a c t i n g i n o b

j e c t i v e g o o d f

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

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

. ” T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. a r t

.

3 8

. 2 3 ( b )

. A n o f

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

k n o w s

— o r s h o u l d k n o w

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

, w e t h i n k

, t o h a v e a c t e d i n

g o o d

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

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

o r m a t i o n

. T h u s

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

e m b r a c e t h e f

r u i t

- o f

- t h e

- p o i s o n o u s

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

. I t i s a l s o b r o a d e n o u g h

, w e c o n c l u d e

, t o

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

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

r e s u l t i n g w a r r a n t w a s t a i n t e d

. I n e x e c u t i n g t h e w a r r a n t

, t h a t o f f i c e r “ a c t [ s ] i n o b

j e c t i v e g o o d

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

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

. T h u s u n d e r s t o o d

, t h eMcClintock — 18

l a n g u a g e o f A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b ) i s “ c o n s i s t e n t w i t h ” a p p l i c a t i o n o f g o o d

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

e x c u s e a p r i o r i l l e g a l i t y

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

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

. B a k e r

, 9 5 6 S

. W

. 2 d a t 2 3

.

A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e h o l d t h a t t h e g o o d

- f a i t h e x c e p t i o n o f A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b ) w i l l a p p l y

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

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

f i c e r

p r e p a r i n g t h e a f

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

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

. ] ” M a s s i

, 7 6 1 F

. 3 d a t

5 2 8

. W e t u r n n o w t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e o f f i c e r s i n t h i s c a s e o p e r a t e d s u f f i c i e n t l y

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

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

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

.

T h e C a n i n e D r u g S n i f f

C o n s i s t e n t w i t h J

a r d i n e s

, t h e d o g s n i f

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

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

. T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t J a r d i n e s a d o p t e d a

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

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

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

, a s t h i s c a s e w a s

. G r i f f i t h v

. K e n t u c k

y

, 4 7 9 U

. S

. 3 1 4

, 3 2 8

( 1 9 8 7 )

. S i n c e J

a r d i n e s

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

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

- d w e l l i n g

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

. S t a t e v

. R e n d o n

, 4 7 7

S

. W

. 3 d 8 0 5

, 8 1 1 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 5 )

. B e c a u s e w e o r d i n a r i l y f o l l o w f e d e r a l r u l e s o fMcClintock — 19

r e t r o a c t i v i t y

, e

. g

. , E

x p a r t e D e L o s R e

y e s

, 3 9 2 S

. W

. 3 d 6 7 5

, 6 7 9 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 3 )

, w e

s h o u l d l i k e w i s e a p p l y t h e h o l d i n g i n R e n d o n t o t h i s c a s e

, c o n s i s t e n t l y w i t h G r i f f i t h

.

I n s h o r t

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

,

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

- d w e l l i n g u p s t a i r s a p a r t m e n t

, w a s p e r p e t r a t e d

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

. T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e 1 7

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

, t h e

w a r r a n t a f

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

. M o r e o v e r

, w e h a v e

a l r e a d y h e l d t h a t

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

r o m t h e i l l e g a l d r u g

- d o g s n i f f

, t h e w a r r a n t

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

. M c C l i n t o c k

, 4 4 4 S

. W

. 3 d a t 1 9

- 2 0

.

W i t h t h a t i n f

o r m a t i o n i n c l u d e d

, h o w e v e r

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

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

f o r c o n t r a b a n d

. S o t h e q u e s t i o n u n d e r A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b )

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

, b e c o m e s :

D i d t h e o f

f i c e r s h a v e a n o b

j e c t i v e g o o d

- f

a i t h b a s i s t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e i r u s e o f a d r u g d o g

w o u l d n o t a d v e r s e l y a f

f e c t t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e w a r r a n t ? T h e a n s w e r d e p e n d s u p o n h o w “ c l o s e

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

. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e

, w e t h i n k i t

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

- f

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

.

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

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

. T h u s

, J a r d i n e s d i d n o t

I n this respe ct, the trial court err ed to conclude that the canine drug sniff did not constitute 1 7

a sea rch f or F ourth Amendment purpose s.McClintock — 20

o v e r r u l e a n y t h i n g

, a s w a s t h e s i t u a t i o n i n D a v i s

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

, e v e n a f t e r J a r d i n e s w a s 1 8

d e c i d e d

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

— a t l e a s t i n t h e a b s t r a c t

— t h e u s e o f a

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

“ s e a r c h ” f

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

. I l l i n o i s v

. C a b a l l e s

, 5 4 3 U

. S

. 4 0 5 ( 2 0 0 5 )

. T h i s i s

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

, a n d c i t i z e n s l a c k a n y r e a s o n a b l e

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

. I d

. a t 4 0 9

. O n l y w h e n t h e d r u g

- s n i f f

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

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

. B u t t h e S u p r e m e

C o u r t d i d n o t m a k e t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n c r y s t a l c l e a r u n t i l J a r d i n e s i t s e l f

. A n d t h e d i s t i n c t i o n

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

. I n d e e d

, e v e n a f t e r J a r d i n e s w a s d e c i d e d

, t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h a t e x a c t l y

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

, a s o p p o s e d t o a s t a n d

- a l o n e h o u s e

, r e m a i n e d a

c l o s e a n d c o n t e n t i o u s i s s u e f o r t h i s C o u r t i n d e c i d i n g R e n d o n

. 1 9

A t t h e t i m e t h e o f

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

d o o r o f A p p e l l a n t ’ s a p a r t m e n t

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

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

f i c e r p r e p a r i n g a

I n Davis

, office rs had conducte d a sear ch of an automobile pursuant to the arr est of the 1 8

driver, even though he had been removed from the car a nd secur ed in the bac k of a squad car —as

they wer e unequivoca lly authorized at the time to do under New Y ork v. Belton

, 453 U.S. 454 (1981).

Whil e Davis was pending on appea l, the Supreme Court overr u l ed itself, in Arizona v. Gant

, 556

U.S. 332 (2009). Jardines did not likewise overr ule any prior Supreme Court prec eden t t h at h ad

expressly permitted ca

nine drug sniffs from the sta

ndpoint of the curtilag e of a home.

See Rendon

, 477 S.W .3d at 813-23 (Ye ary

, J

., dissenting, joined by Keller

, P

. J

. , and 1 9

Kea sler and H erve y , J J .) (a rg uing tha t what constitutes curtilag e of a house, a s in Jardines , versus

an apa rtment or other

multi-dwelling re sidence , is a diffe rent issue).McClintock — 21

w a r r a n t a f

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

w a s n o t t a i n t e d b y u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n d u c t

. B e c a u s e t h e l a n g u a g e o f A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( b )

a c c o m m o d a t e s t h e Ma s s i g o o d

- f a i t h s t a n d a r d

, w e h o l d t h a t t h e o f f i c e r ’ s s u b s e q u e n t s e a r c h

o f t h e a p a r t m e n t w a s e x e c u t e d “ i n o b j e c t i v e g o o d f

a i t h r e l i a n c e ” o n t h e w a r r a n t

. T h e f r u i t o f

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

o r e e x c e p t e d f

r o m A r t i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 ( a ) ’ s e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e

. U l t i m a t e l y

, t h e

t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r t o o v e r r u l e 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

. 2 0

C O N C L U S I O N

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

i s a f f i r m e d

.

F I L E D : M a r c h 2 2

, 2 0 1 7

P U B L I S H

An appe llate cour

t should uphold t he trial c ourt’s denia l of a motion to suppress so long 2 0

as its ruling is corr ect on any leg al theory applicable to the case

. Furr v. State

, 499 S.W .3d 872, 877

(Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Thoug h the t rial court err ed to hold that the dog s niff in this case did not

constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes, it could have ruled that the wa rr ant supplied

probable cause and that the police acte d in objective g ood faith in rely ing on the neutra l mag istrate’s

finding of probable cause . The use of the drug dog at Appellant’s front door, althoug h illega l, w as

sufficie ntly

“close to the line of validity ” as to re nder tha t relianc e re asonable

.