Court Opinion

ID: 9684034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:45:19.885438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:52.483594
License: Public Domain

TERRIE LIVINGSTON, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the result the majority reaches. I write separately only to state that since appellant’s sole point on appeal challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, what happened after the warrant was approved has little significance. His complaint is that the “magistrate did not act in a neutral manner regarding the search and arrest warrant he signed.” Because the allegedly nonneutral act — the magistrate observing the raid and arrest— occurred after the magistrate had read and reviewed the affidavit and signed the warrant, there can be no meaningful challenge to his neutrality at the time he originally approved the warrant. See Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319, 326-28 & n. 6, 99 S.Ct. 2319, 2324-25 & n. 6, 60 L.Ed.2d 920 (1979).
Further, because the record does not show the trial court abused its discretion in overruling the motion to suppress, the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed. See Davis v. State, 144 S.W.3d 192, 200 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, 2004, no pet.) (op. on reh’g).