Opinion ID: 146661
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Warrant Is Valid

Text: Even if we purge from the warrant affidavit any information officers obtained as a result of the intrusion of Trejo’s backyard, under the independent source doctrine, sufficient facts remain to constitute probable cause. See United States v. Hassan, 83 F.3d 693, 697 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). This includes the corroborated tip about the van, the van appearing to deliver a cargo to Trejo’s house, the appearance of the house, the smell of marijuana and masking agents, the boxes observed during the protective sweep, and the canine’s positive alert for the presence of narcotics. See United States v. Pierre, 958 F.2d 1304, 1310 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (reasoning that the smell of marijuana can give rise to probable cause). Garza testified that he believed the officers had probable cause to seek a warrant after the officers smelled marijuana and the canine confirmed this observation. In light of these facts, we easily conclude that the officers would have sought a search warrant even had they not observed boxes through the back windows of Trejo’s house. See Hassan, 83 F.3d at 697. D. Trejo’s Statements, and the Marijuana, Were Admissible Trejo also argues that the district court erred by failing to suppress the written and oral statements he gave officers as well as the physical evidence of 12 Case: 09-50232 Document: 00511113066 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/17/2010 No. 09-50232 the search. Trejo’s oral statements to the officers during the course of the knock and talk were admissible. Trejo was not in custodial interrogation because he had not been placed under formal arrest or a restraint tantamount to arrest when he told the officers he knew who they were and he knew what he had. See United States v. Chavez, 281 F.3d 479, 486 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Bengivenga, 845 F.2d 593, 596 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc). Therefore, the fact that the officers did not administer a Miranda warning does not render this statement inadmissible. See Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977). We have concluded that Trejo validly consented to the officers’ protective sweep of his home, and that the officers’ observations gave rise to probable cause upon which a valid warrant was issued. Therefore, we must reject Trejo’s contention that his inculpatory written statement following execution of the warrant is fruit of the poisonous tree. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-86 (1963).5 We likewise reject Trejo’s argument that the marijuana discovered in his house was the fruit of an illegal search. See id. at 487-88.