Court Opinion

ID: 9772847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:31:22.228655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:48.817614
License: Public Domain

CADENA, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I would hold that the search warrant was insufficient to authorize the search which led to the discovery of the evidence on which appellant’s conviction was clearly based.
There is no quarrel with the conclusion that there was compliance with TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. arts. 18.00,18.06,18.08, and 18.09 (Vernon 1979 and Supp.1988). But all such articles are irrelevant since appellant’s complaint does not rest on any alleged failure to comply with those arti*502cles of our Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant bases his challenge to the validity of the warrant is based solely and expressly on the fact that the warrant does not comply with the requirements of article 18.04, which provides that a search warrant is sufficient “if it contains the following requisites”:
(1) that it run in the name of “The State of Texas”;
(2) that it identify, as near as may be, that which is to be seized and name or describe, as near as may be, the person, place, or thing to be searched;
(3) that it command any peace officer of the proper county to search forthwith the person, place, or thing named; and
(4) that it be dated and signed by the magistrate.
Id. at art. 18.04.
The statutory language is clear. The warrant shall be sufficient if it contains the “following requisites.” The “following requisites” are four in number. There is no basis for changing statutory language to provide that a warrant is sufficient “if it contains any three of the following requisites” or “if it contains the following requisites except that which commands any peace officer of the proper county to search forthwith the person, place, or thing named.”1
The fact that the printed portion of the warrant contains the directive, “You are hereby commanded to enter ... and search the above described premises. ...,” is completely irrelevant. It cannot be seriously argued that this directive somehow supports the conclusion that a warrant commanding “THE SHERIFF OR ANY PEACE OFFICER OF BEXAR COUNTY” does not in fact command the sheriff or any peace officer of Bexar County to enter and search the described premises. There is only one possible antecedent for the pronoun “you,” and that is “the sheriff or any peace officer of Bexar County.” No other possible antecedent exists. The command is simply not directed to any other sheriff or peace officer.
A consideration of the entire warrant and the accompanying affidavit is of no help. The sole reference in the affidavit to any peace officer is found in the portion which identifies the affiant as “JACK WRIGHT who is a San Antonio Police Dept, detective.” San Antonio, of course, is the county seat of Bexar County. In fact, a consideration of the entire warrant and affidavit compels the conclusion that whenever the words “Bexar County” were not intended to be included, no difficulty whatever was encountered in striking out such words and substituting “Guadalupe County.” There can be no doubt that that the warrant commanded that the search be by a Bexar County peace officer.
The suggestion that the failure to substitute “Guadalupe County” for “Bexar County” at the top of the warrant was not such a fatal defect that it contributed to either the conviction or the punishment of the appellant is not easily understood. If the defect rendered the warrant invalid, the evidence on which the conviction was based was illegally obtained. The introduction of illegally obtained evidence clearly contributed to appellant’s conviction.
A search warrant which fails to comply with the requirements of article 18.04 in that it does not adequately describe the premises to be searched is invalid and the admission of evidence obtained under such warrant is error. Miller v. State, 134 Tex.Crim. 118,114 S.W.2d 244, 246 (1938). The same is true of a failure to comply with the requirement that the warrant be dated and signed by the magistrate. Glenniwinkel v. State, 114 Tex.Crim. 188, 21 S.W.2d 514, 515 (1929); Miller v. State, 703 S.W.2d 352, 354 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1985, pet. ref’d). Where a statute names four requirements and identical language is used in naming such requirements, no reasonable basis supports a holding that some of *503the “requisites” must be complied with while others may be simply ignored.

. If proper county has any meaning, it must be that county in which the premises to be searched is located.