Court Opinion

ID: 4047097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 00:19:39.520834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:50.966048
License: Public Domain

_1'1<`. cT.140. ac\e,~%w,dzs»/\ 4412-<13, 9.'1:).- 01

f 1 13 1943 0
.D§Aa w M Om_u°c\/\ `1_51_141111sscm~s41:_3_49u_411'_1113_@111113_ C@1m14a}_kaoL@gS

mgL\v\o'\ w&+ 13 ug\)eu$ QO(FM

11_\s:111e_ 13143_ 0131.11111@.0_\_1:1114;1 300 311`111&1 M me Cosz_

 

. _ _ ` ' 1333‘13303&3;613111

v fsgs\sxb_r§c\uaec\_w1}(¥ 344&_1411§_11 VA@E_I\'TL% \IbL\AN\e 1 O{\\; :“DE)< ° 9114.1> 11190.14_
§1¥13144 _03_1_\13;149_341 1_0_35344_31_)_\§\0_ d_O_ €._\).Y!_\&.n'\`_e, A;&EGU\ESX_ \:_@_R,)

1335111144>111'014 113 313 1131141® 1114 4\1;>1>31\1;’
sma 1113 ` 515 P\_KU WRRRP\“T@“> 83911§11 s\\11>111'11\1 mme

 

 

 

 

011.`131=_ 30014\ 1:‘11441[ :114)14~( 31144`111`1014 1111411!1_1_0_1)__1 03 1>1<11111441\ 9101¢11_144111 Am`\:\e ii 0‘1."
qasml_\js;` D333111>4>1NT__M1\91<1113$_1> smo»s`\~w's_ 1410_111)14_ 31)_& _HemeG_?_d_\RS_\A&Qj;sTs<)s_
33344119_.\/_._13_11114111, s'~\s% 11 s' 1331 11413\,”1>1~41 ‘\ M011¢14 w 349911153 1=,=\/11>31113 /
fgzg§ssis_\sl_o_bo_wmamen _"&%M@sxss fogs 339131141111031_01:_411€_@1031> <)_44_ waL
_14_1411_`15_511331_1\_‘31>_111111114111>_111_1113;:1\1&)\ 11153111~1,11 wmm+ 1141

SQMJ/\ W¢»(ru:\`bss¢>sc\f_3s11>91\;d_sm\411d41 s%m‘\' 114 14413(\» 1311141°\%‘111449¢1 metals ABO\{@. '

. 111\111;\1\_15 sDQCMmmM_\N 1313_21;11!>1>,11)_ s s}s`I.ssa14_\ss1111`_11’\:1_1111s_1.3_1’_1391_91m1£111145_*
01 11on 011 ‘\'1»1€ " K€@MS‘( 300 DES\311.\9s014 A?s’\’seq\_”

 

 

 

?3%9 1151 :1

 

 

,M/l m r,' oP%( o\= .. ‘N_'c ‘.;éw~\
'\1\! Su?€oR`\ <)§ {\Mib\£ 11 D-l” m\'\'\£b\__\/\IAS_QC`\Q{N\\[\/ Sem’ *\/t>
&AR?>AM 31ch ’YHC~ D;\swr\ci`_€t£»€\$mo¥l_ 4112_ Lv_@;s\>¢(_< Co___q~+\/%

_§_G_\M¥\Aou,se on A?K\L @.. Q.O\§ v
%L§°"\ ,PW\ SMQQ~N%_@ copvs() of /1§2 \ FéHP]`oNe/; OBJe¢rio/u$

"l_`O '\"HE STAQS ReSPo/~cse #F.`mmas op M¢T ,AM> ca~o/w$¢‘¢/~/$_ mg
rLélw W/\[_`oLL_ was /h,,s_o Je/~/T /`~ J'ro 'E/WBAE/f fucyj_ on omaqu or
§@§L_m%_:t 1. amf » §
1 mm §e~//~@ ms A22 ,'~ mal 10 M»//.r_~__o_\e_v;_K._o_z_f_e@___LM.hbook bmw CWALN<¢ f§L\?LMNeg_(g/;S@& an ULMS\MMM »D@c\e£&‘i@w W'\M. ¢€al;l"\ clowmgn‘f'. _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Si(`¢u§ap ‘ \5' A~Q»v(; c>£\ v L~`.`Q/W\"_(~/___élc>\b"_

‘Res?eer€»_u_\>{ 8\_13~»11‘¥¢1>/.
?e:t`c\'_`\o»_ar_€l\,j§e*_ _co ' 32

\\.Lo \=w\` 33»4\/- "
JQ;LS.\WQ.N` 1`<0¢1§3

 

 

 

 

 

 

fPMa§l Q:_°S`Q`

._%;_GAMqum;_&oxb;_AzjjO;S#A f , \mz# <§K,SU|Q~-<>;L `

 

 

 

 

 

_MO._QQ\S » L'\;’>:\_,_O'Y>$'A \'$'\ " §131’(`_\_§1’ C,§ou~(-\’
?Ro / § €, » ' l ` 0 _F - '
\\/l£\\QGL\/x% D.. `M'.o \_"¢_N A& 7 ' \,v~\g\o@c,§é_§_wmi :\:QL¢LSW

 

\]nkm_m£;l oz 1 " ,'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T_ADEY~
?AC:»€
_AT_N§€>L_.._ '__l'
_SL. *mzm.o£'_e\_x>m/\ az \,_Au \¢_\\ SuDPom' 06 Mnc12~__:¢.1¢>‘1..._2¢
C_’). S_e_o_\c¢¥\ \_'/$_o,_(__dea, \
'~{3& m;_$_. \51~\ (m‘/~z? ; ' , ' ` ' _ \'?

, _lo_'@€@mq,sx'_\:oe_'x>€s\~\ 'TO S_\»\§?QQESS_E>/M_€élcé’ . . _.33
% ?@U:UQ.)>\€&__OBU'<:¢T:Q»`\S ’t’o ‘mg s'r/#'438 U.S. 154 (1978). lt is within the
constitutional interest to safeguard individual rights and freedoms from unlawful
home invasion. Therefore the petitioner moves this court to grant him a Franks
Hearing on the truthfulness of statement in the search warrant affidavit.

STATEMENT oF CAsE

The Petitioner was convicted of the offense of unlawful possession of
|\/|etha_mphetamine with intent to deliver 4-200_grams and was sentenced to
twenty five (25) years in TDCJ-|D enhanced.

lssuEs lN REviEw

l. Excluded physical evidence of probable cause.
k § Av.\ .
ll. The search warrantjplr%vlded false and incomplete data;
incomplete information which was turned over to the magistrate
was fundamentally defective

` gi v ?63.10`:%

lll. Without notice of the time, dat ocation of the alleged drug
purchase in the search warra n§§r%b the petitioner an
opportunity to enter a alibi defense or to obtain witnesses in his
favor as offered in the 6TH Alv\ENDl\/\ENT oFTHE U.S. CoNsTlTuTioN.

STATEl\/\ENT oF FAuLTs

 

The pursuant to an invalid search warrant. Officers ofthe Lubbock Police
Department made a dynamic entry into the petitioner’s residence seized various
items and killing the petitioners' dog with some well-placed rounds.

The evidence subsequently obtained was illegally obtained and should be
suppressed a\s fruit of a poisonous tree under well established 4"` Amendment
doctrine woNG sun v.` uNnED sTATEs 371 u.s. 471 (1963).

The search warranell stated that the petitioner was involved in a
controlled purchase on No AcTuAL DAY, No D\REcTTnviE, and No sPEch\c LocATioN. Also
there is No wAY'To vERlFY THE ALLEGED suBsTANcE submitted to the department of
public safety laboratory or the said THREE HuNDRED DoLLARs withdrawn from the
Lubbock Police Department fund, due to No leENTon oRTRANsAchoN NulleERs
stated in 5. d of the search warrant affidavit. Ng:`F-§M'\YTHZ§E S%"§R§Sc\§glfm“§ .%Y,€(§ £§E;\“€

femth oil “r<> ne m Au~l vance ccrort\" on l><\~N ome& Qe?oR'r A'\' T\&AT._,
Consequently, traveling to an undisclosed location not named (stated in

5.d) of the search warrant affidavit could have been anywhere, outside the
court's jurisdiction. Therefore the search warrant very well could cause the
magistrate to exercise power it is not authorized to perform.

A fiduciary charged with the duty of a full disclosure concealment of
material facts needed to verify the underlining grounds used for probable cause is
extrinsic fraud (see) l\/lONTGOrleRYV. KENNEDY, 6695. W. 20309 (1984). Concea|ment
of material facts`€sdto cover up fraud and prevent the petitioner from presenting
at trial his legal right to affirmatively assert an alibi defense (see) WlLL\Alvls V.
FLoRIDA 399 U.S. 780 (1970).

_3_ n l ?¢G.zoFi

issues oF FACT

'

The fact issues herein are; the search warrant does M provide a U_E_L
Tnle! oR LocATloN of the alleged controlled purchase or DoEs NoT PRoleE ANY wAY To
coNFlRiv\ THE suBsTANcE stated submitted to the D.P.S. Laboratory due to the fact n
that the court would at least need the DATE ANDT|ME lT wAs suBlvuTTED (or) the g
NulleER of the inventory as stated in 5.d of the search warrant affidavit.

Clearly the affiant constructively took time to carefully cover up the
$300.00 from the Lubbock Police fund which is why HE FALSLY CREATED THE FAKE
CONTROLLED PURCHASE.

 

The courts have general power to hear and determine issues of facts and in
doing so decide which evidence is true and which is false. `

A search warrant serves two functions:' (_FBS_T) it gives the officer jurisdiction
to enter, search, and seize property; (sEcoNDLY) it satisfies the due process
requirement by providing notice to the defendant of what probable cause gave
birth to the right to enter and search. Thus the probable cause.cannot be based
on false information. (See) FRANKS V. DELAwARE 438 U.S. 154 (1978); CATEs V. STATE,
120 S.W. 3D 359 (2003). '

There is no place, date, nor time to establish the existence ofthe alleged
controlled purchase, clearly to cover-up fraud on the court the prosecutor waived
the fraudulent evidence said to be at the D.P.S. Laboratory when real evidence
was gained as the fruit of.the illegal search, Probable cause for the search warrant
cannot be justified on what the search produces (see) BYARs V. U.S. 28, 29, S. CT.
248. 71 L.ED. 520.

 

v The Legality of the search may not be determined from the fruits alone
without proof of probable cause. _

The underlining grounds the affiant used for probable cause which resulted
from the described undercover operation named in the search warrant. Thus if it _
were not for the said fruit of the transaction no probable cause would exist. The
only way to ascertain the truth of the allegation made by the affiant would be to

offer proof showing the fruit of the transaction. Such which cannot be confirmed
do to no tracking number.

The affiant obviously did not want anyone to track his course of action or
attempt to verify the said substance allegedly submitted to the Department of
Public Safety Laboratory, when he did not §§g§§the lo.cation, date, or time of the
sequence of events in the search warrant. Therefore it is no way to ascertain the
truth of the investigation without producing_the proof which justifies the 3300.00
of money from the Lubbock Police Department fund used in the operation.

Consequently the non existence of such proof explains why the prosecutor
waived the states prosecution of the result of the described undercover
operation; excluding the proof of probable cause which was a defect that
rendered the search-warrant void.

The prosecutor cannot waive its obligation to meet the constitutional
requirement that; no warrant shall issue but upon Probable Cause.... United
States Constitution Amendment 4TH.

The 4th Amendment provides that, ”the right of the people to be secured in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
‘seizures." Require the evidence gathered as probable cause to be produced and
offered to justify the issuance of the search warrant a_nd the prosecutor cannot
waive the states requirement to meet it by waiving the evidence.

The exclusion of probable cause clearly means the search warrant was no

' longer justified and all evidence obtained as a result, were fruit of a poisonous
tree, therefore the petitioner dog died for unjustified reasons; mob violence at
the hands of a tyrant whom violates the U.S. Constitutional Laws. Exclusion of
Probable cause also required the exclusion of the evidence gained as the result of
the search warrant as the ”fruits" of the unlawful action. WoNG SuN V. UNITED
STATEs, 371 U.S. 471 (1963), AGulLAR V. TExAs, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).

The harmful effect of improperly admitted evidence which is obtained by
illegal police practices is nc$\cu_red when a defendant pleads guilty. (See) SHERLOCK
v. sTATE, 632 s.w. 20 604 (193`2).

§' giants

The exclusion and concealment of all the facts needed to verify probable
cause can only be perceived as a malicious attempt to cover up'fraud in efforts to
manipulate the statutory requirements by fraudulently alleging to have gained
incriminating evidence thru a controlled purchase that cannot be confirmed.

The exclusionary rule prohibits the prosecutor from using the fruit of an
unlawful invasion as proof of probable cause, because search warrant which was
unsupported by probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution; AGulLAR V. TExAs 378 U.S. 108 (1964).

The constitutional question is upon the magistrate’s unchecked discretion,

The affiant is bound by the allegations it sets out in the search warra nt|and

must provide sufficient facts needed to prove the allegations are based on real
events which can be established and confirmed within the four corners of the

which has caused the life of a pet and the unlawful invasion of privacy.

affidavit. Which herein cannot be done, and a hearing is necessary to confirm the

truthfulness of the affidavit.
' _ €F'\WW\T
The search warrant merely alleges an action with phases; without setting
out dates, times or places needed to confirm the allegations. Thus the allegations
don not correspond with nor can they be incorporated with an _other offense _
we 10 No cause oil 000¥€\'=\=¥ Oi.i~rrle search wm tmi oil AF \bAv\i‘Al-so m No‘romi_ sem_ loi~i
report. theresa me C..e_¢\Rcu warrant oil k¢eoa\n+ Tex. ?9.~ peat mont aova.“rr\€ nuisance o\¢ n
r\onz`\m. seA\. Re\\\o as mg vh F\bm,\j pXF€[/t`\\l€ \/-‘T.G.A.. G»ov. Cob\=. 3\&.0\\( .veNAe.\.e v.`stm_€ us s.w.sa vq-i-
c,p.¢.»¢reA,aoo»iwi.;sas°n>r§]l=u@m€& Ro\ias 'F v my mth \»\l\?i’€M-_E\l€\i~( \¢AcTTb simon ?RoBAoL€ pause is s\Mv\:( Nvfme££.
T e et\tloner woul urt er s ow that officers of the Lubbock Police
department illegally detained, arrested, and searched defendant in Lubbock
Texas, in the course of a search pursuant to warrant on or about the 11th day of

December 20(12. The officers arrested petitioner at 2802 1St place.

The execution of the search warrant did not take-place within the three
days as required by C.C.P.Art.18-.07(a)(2).The defendant l\/larques l\/lo'|inar filed
a pretrial motion to suppress alleging the search warrant was executed in an
untimely matter. When a search warrant is not executed within the time period
provided for by Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. Arts. 18.06 And 18.07 it becomes
”Functus Officio" and any search whose legality depends on the warrant is
unauthorized,' failing to establish probable cause for issuance of search wa rrant.

'\70\€ 5 op%
`lo» v 9 .

The motion to suppress should have been ruled and granted under Tex.'Code of
Crim. Ann. Art. 18.07 Vernon 1977. The time allowed for the execution of a search
warrant shal|'be three whole days exclusive of the day of its issuance and the day
of its execution but under Texas Code Crim. Prox. Ann. Art. 18.06 Vernon 1977. A
search warrant shall be executed within a shorter period if,so directed in the
warrant by the magistrate He the magistrate shortened the time for execution of
the search warrant by omitting the statutory language exclusive the day of its
issuance... l\/loreover Texas Law put no time limit on an arrest warrant. Chapter
18 times limitation apply only to the search warrant¢§£it was shorter then what
the law provided fora search warrant in the case in hand, petitioner search
warrant signed and issued by the magistrate at 1112 p.m. on December 7,2012.
The defendant claimed that the search warrant should have been executed on the
7"‘, 8th, 9th, or 10th day of December. The defendant claims by saying nothing in
the warrant about excluding the day of the issuance. Defe'ndant argues that the
search warrant was executed at a point in time that was longer than is authorized
by statue and therefore pursuant to Tex. Code of Crim. Ann. Art. 38.23 Vernon
1974 his motion to suppress should have been granted (see) WlLLlAIvlS V. STATE 965
l S.W. ZD 506 j1998). The appellant would have us hold that, by saying nothing in
the warrant about excluding the day of the issuance. The magistrate directed a
shorter period than article 18.07 allows. He relies on dicta in BLACKMON V. STATEl
786 S.W. 20, 487, 469 (TEx. APP. - HousToN [1sT DlsT.] 1990, PET. REF o), which said of
a warrant with identical _language:

Here the magistrate shorted the'time'&for execution of both
the search and arrest warrant by omitting the statutory -
language ”exclusive of the date of issuance"` [T]he magistrate
put his own time limit on this warrant and it was shorter then
what the law provides for search warrants.

The appellant's argument and the Blackmon Dicta are based on the principal of
the Legal l\/|axim ”Expressio Unius Est Exlusio alterius" (the expression of one
thing is the exclusive of another). The appellant says that since the magistrate
expressly said that the day of execution was in the period of time, he must have
meant that the day of issuance was not in the period because it was not

'_]` t“z@~is

expressed within the 4 corners of the affidavit; there the magistrate put his own
time limit sh ` `_ ' l xecution for the search warrant. The warrant
shows that it " "'»E ` q
warrant therefore expired.

 
 

ExPARTEJoE DAY 125 TEx. Canl. 8.66 S.W. 20 695 (1933). When neither an
affidavit nor a jurat bears any date they are fatally defective and cannot furnish
any proper basis for an arrest and certainly none for a writ of Habeas Corpus.

RoBERTo HERED\A V. STATE 468 S.W. 20 833 (1971), the affidavit was also
insufficient because the jurat was undated. The inadequacy of the affidavit to
support the S.W. rendered the evidence obtained.through the search illegal and
therefore inadmissible.

l\/lASSEY, 933 S.W. 20 AT 148. Whether officers ashburns affidavit articulated
facts which establish probable cause.

ART 39.08 [744][827][807] authenticating the deposition---the official seal
and signature of the officer taking the deposition shall be attached to the
certificates authenticating the acts 1965, 59th Lea. Vol. 2d. 317, Ch. 722, EFF. Jan.»
1, 1961.

Wherefore the petitioner PRAYS the constitutional relief be granted and
hearing pursuant to Franks V. Delaware be set to confront Officer Wa|ter Scott (#
18644) on the truthfulness of statements in the affidavit.

Respectfu|ly Submitteg
AM/ma/ W/‘

¢f/a 7'5%13

Petitioner filing Pro' Se

 

.~nvi~i§ 'ro Eaer.@~»lw 00 1111

 

. , :§j:g€&jowl \/ §’(/>€f€/ 1153 S\i,\l 319 @°Ll 0ng AFF\DA\:\*\“ leak Sth
111504£(_ aan FM\L_€,D T0 8'\'/><(4/1\,1\'1@110110_1'§0£10\1(_@d1u)lu f}v\_l>_o£w\ed$at$i§__
" 519 immk 0_0¥_1?@818101001\15£ “\’vi€¢&€$¥ KEMDEAM 501 ral\_wamd'_
11\1111\._0110_\811&00\101\0\41 of Vé\hd§ 01 \\\@bkb_§@mr¢lr\ K!L\!€r516i,€/ CRROK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wu%¥@

 

Unsworn Declaration
(Texas Civi/ Practice and Remedies Code, Section 132.001)

My name is: _UM¢L€$ b V\l(e MOL\\'JAK

First Middla Las!

mydaieofbirihis: Cl /‘95 / 411 ,and

.‘.1onth Day `/ear

my address is: LQ\O ‘\:l`/\ zzuiqi 3&§{§($\00(`0 El¢a§ 72€:{£5
and U\i~ii~.\"eo\ §\0»11/§ i& Aii\€li€¢i

Country `

 

 

li (/f you are incarcerated you must also include the following infonnation.)

. My inmate identifying number, if any, is: K\ \<0(153~‘~\%

lam presently incarcerated in: l ji\li_>$ C§j S"?b`f€ god | (/[/\ii+'

Correc!ions Unit Nama

m3%i,y_v__.i _4g\}§):w_':yrojuj.:hayé?£ef)'/ck, Monims

2012, to ce ` fy which witné'§s"mykhand`."

. ,

  

    

\\

 

\k\` ‘>/ g (\>\u_. q\é\r&]?f`\'\/‘/`~----/ . '\\
, 1 -, . , . l ¢. ' ' JUDGEPRESIDING -
. <_ ‘~ * (. ' "/ >* LUBBOCK coUNTY, TEXAS
»`-/" ' z l /'4 ~ pulse il 01 A-
u ' ' ~\ '

Unsworn Dec|aration
(Texas Civi/ Practice and Remedies Code, Section 132.001)

 

 

 

 

My name is: W\(M'G.tk€§ b b\l<€/ l\/\GL lNJt i("
Fi`rsr .'.iidd/e _ Last
my date of birth is: 0 l / 05 / <69~ , and
,‘.ionth Day Year
my address islth Fl‘/\ 33le :lll\(/l<$to(<) TQ\LA§ 7Lpng B
` SlreetAdd/ess r C/`ty _ Slare Zip Code
and unfit SriT¢s lit ilii\uiot
Country

 

(If you are incarcerated you must also include the following inlarmetion.)

lV|y inmate identifying number. if any, is: OlQ 0\$9~"\8
l am presently incarcerated in: L"*"D 503 S‘W\Te FML t/\Nlj\'

Corrections Un_it Name

in:fiac\ dick few 7(0Lls@ .

City ' County State Zip Code

l declare under penalty of perjury that all lnformatlon ln the attached document titled,

S€Ut(C/ll\ \/\lll»((li\nl . is true and correct.

Name of Dacumenr

SFQned in gac/k County, '\/ e/ V\Ft$ '

Counly SIate

onthisdate: 05 /li / \§

Month l Day Year ` b-
<)/\ iM im iVl`/\“l/‘”M

Your Slgnahire

l
Pursuant to Texas Civi| Practice and Remedies Code Section 132.001. an unsworn declaration may be
used in lieu cfa written sworn declaration. verification, certit'icatlon, oath, or affidavit required by statute or
required by a rule, order, or requirement adopted as provided by law. This provision does not apply to an
oath of office or an oath required to be taken before a specined official other than a notary public. An
unsworn declaration made under this section must be 1) in writing, 2) signed by the person making the
declaration as true under penalty of perjury and 3) in substantially the form used above.

9 TexasLawHelp.org - Unsworn Dec/aration. August 2012 Page 1 of 1

~lQ\.

 

5.`-’ 0 g
iii di \A§" T "
1
AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT

THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK

The undersigned Affiant, being a Peace Officer under the laws of Texas and being duly sworn, on
oath makes the following statements and accusations:

l. THERE IS IN LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS, A SUSPECTED PLACE AND PERSON
DESCRIBED AND LOCATED AS FOLLOWS:

2802 1st Place, in Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas. The residence is described as a

' single family residence, which is situated on the north side of the 2800 block of lst
Place. The building is constructed of tan stucco, having a grey composite roof, and
grey trim. The front door is white in color and faces south. The numerals “2802” are
painted on the curbing adjacent to the driveway. There is a large blue and silver star
painted on the center portion of the driveway to the residence.

2. THERE IS AT SAID SUSPECTED PLACE AND PREMISES PROPERTY
CONCEALED AND KEPT IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE
OF TEXAS AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

Methamphetamine, and any other controlled substances, packaging materials, scales, money,<>'
and any other contraband and/or items consistent with or indicative of trafficking of
controlled substances and/or items consistent with the manufacture of methamphetamine, the
containers which may contain them, any written material or electronic devices, including
computers, hard drives, _CD-ROM’s, tloppy discs, or any other magnetic or optical media that
may contain records of illicit narcotics trafficking and also to include mobile devices and
any device capable of communicating information about narcotic transactions

3. SAID SUSPECTED PLACE AND PREMISES ARE_IN CHARGE OF AND
CONTROLLED BY EACH OF THE FOLLOWING:

Marques Duke Molinar, a Hispanic Male, with a date of birth of 1-5-1982 and is
described as being 5’ 10” tall and weighing approximately 180 pounds, and person or
persons unknown to Affiant.

4. IT IS THE BELIEF OF THE AFFIANT, AND I~[E`, HEREBY CHARGES AND
ACCUSES THAT: -

Above described person or persons intentionally and knowingly keep, conceal, possess, and
traffic methamphetamine, which is in violation of the laws of the State of Texas.

5. THE AFFIANT HAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SAID BELIEF BY REASON OF THE
FO_LLOWING FACTS:

pay 1 vi 3

, i:z

 

, .
11 ,. .
. . 1
{ . .
. .
' 0
1
1

(a) vAff`iant is a Peace Officer under the laws of the State of Texas and is employed in good
standing with the Lubbock Police Depaitment and assigned to the Special Operations Division'
as a Narcotics Investigator. Aff`iant has been involved in numerous investigations involving
the trafficking of controlled substances, and has been a commissioned law enforcement
officer for over twenty-three years Aff`iant has worked with the Department of Public Safety,
Lubbock Sheriff’ s Department, ATF, and the Drug Enforcement Administration on numerous
narcotics related investigations

(b) Affiant knows through his training and experience as a police officer, that methamphetamine
traffickers commonly utilize written material or electronic devices, including computers, hard
drives, CD~ROM’s, floppy discs, or any other magnetic or optical media to keep and store
records of illicit narcotics trafficking and also to include mobile devices and any device
capable of communicating information about narcotic transactions Aff'iant knows
through his training and experience as a police officer, methamphetamine traffickers
commonly maintain firearms to protect the controlled substances and their proceeds of
narcotics sales ’

l /‘\`
x,`. ,3_ _
\, t ,.`_.

(c) Aff`iant has personal information that methamphetamine is being trafficked, and possessed at
said location Aff`iant has personal information that Marques Duke Molinar resides at the said
residence and is engaged daily 111 the trafficking of methamphetaminel

. // - .
v .,. (-d) A'ffiant_ is in contact with a confidential informant that has provided credible and reliable
»' ' ' f ,, " information` in crimes investigated by the Lubbock Police Department. The confidential
3 informant has purchased methamphetamine from Marques Duke Molinar _111 the past and has
conducted two controlled purchases for methamphetamine from this subject. The informant
has advised this investigator that Marques Molinar does keep firearms at his residence and has
displayed one of these weapons to the informant` in the past -

Within thep";s;h';w theinfm'mant contacted Marques Duke Molinar by phone and
arran§ed a p se for methamphetamine at the direction of this investigator. The informant
was given three hundred dollars of Lubbo"ck Police funds, which were photocopied by this
investigator. The informant was equipped with an audio recorder and transmitting device.

/- us The informant was driven by Investigator Fletcher to a location predetermined by Marques
1551 333 l 1 13 v\ti _ Molinar. Investigator Lewis maintained constant surveillance of 2802 lst Place. Investigath
31 mg v 3 ” Lewis observed Marques Molinar leave 2802'1st Place and trave_l' 111 the- direction of the‘$ ` 3 ~
J~*_~H ' x predetermined location. llnvestigatd"" rfe;wis coordinated with additional investigators on the ‘~'»,
_ . survei ance team, insuring Marques Molinar was under constant visual observation Marques

Molinar arrived at the location he determined without making any stops, entering any
q _ § ' buildings or residences,- or making contact with any other persons Marques Moli_nar made
l _ `,.' ' jj ' _ ' , q contact with the/informant The informant gave Marques Molinar the Lubbock Police _1 "
34 ~ “ ` » Fdepanment funds and Molinar gave the informant a baggie containing a crystal substance
` " ` The informant returned to the vehicle and gave the substance to lnve_stigator Fletcher. The

212 ry 'm'§"‘: g substance was given to m_e by Investigator F letcher at the Lubbock Police Narc`otics office.'

'~§,. . 31 m§, iam .H,_..- 5

fig 31 4 J_ y 'Z: ;'»#,MJ v The substance did test positive for methamphetamine with a field test l_1~1 w: 1123 333
3 “ . ‘r §§ 1“"- 331/sas a result of the described undercover operation, Aff'iant has probable cause to believe that "

rth
fw "`Q@QM§N“J PMarques Duke Molinar possesses methamphetamine at his residence and has stored, or is in

possession of the Lubbock Police Department hinds used 111 the operation
_ . t\ \`

`.\'_, .
4 _»

3 333

lL

 

 

. .
it v ;-"3‘ ' `
'. ,o
.4 ‘.:'

Marques Duke Molinar’s criminal history indicates charges for the following oH`enses:
Possession of Marijuana (five occassions), Manufacturing or Delivery of a Controlled
Substance, Possession of a Controlled Substance (five occassions), Evading Arrest or
Detention, Driving While Intoxicated, Driving while License lnvalid, Unlawful Restraint,
Tampering with Evidence, Assault Causing Bodily lnjury to a family Member (two occasions)

(e) Afflant prays that a search warrant be issued for the aforementioned residence located at 2802
I‘t l:lace, in Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas being occupied and~coritmlled by the
. -- aforementioned person or persons and all persons entering the residence during the execution
of the search warrant and to search the people so occupying and controlling said residence.

(f) Affiant prays for forced entry into the aforementioned residence located at 2802 lst Place for _
reasons of officer safety and to prevent the loss or destruction of said evidence. lt has been my
past experience that methamphetamine traffickers are frequently armed with firearms and
other weapons to protect the methamphetamine It has also been my past experience that
methamphetamine can be very easily destroyed in a residence such as the said location due to ‘
the easy access to sinks and bathrooms. It has also been my past experience that persons
trafficking in methamphetamine have a contingency plan to destroy the evidence very quickly
if they suspect police presence is imminent Marques Duke Molinar is believed to be in
possession of a firearm, which creates a substantial risk to officers on scene and the public.
Marques Duke Molinar has been charged with assault on two prior occasions creating a
potential risk for officers ' 1

WHEREFORE, Affiant prays for issuance of a warrant that will authorize hi t earch sai
g ' place and premises or said property and seize the same. , M%,
goal ‘@g_lz\i¢¥}jz,g § .‘ _th _, /HA!< '\1) ita t,~`/A§ gtl_N@!f' am , .»1!/ . t \‘

.-<,,`M'/ g 1.1 j

  
 

bna wit air --‘/‘Sr=r??':`f <++;~;walter_$cou jr §

sWoRN To AND sUBscRIBED To BEFORE me by said Amam <;n this cite 7/”

day of Mce’M¢-,'LAD, 2012.

 

JUDGE PRESIDING,
/ LUBBOCK coUNTY, TEXAS
1 / ` -'\ .
.) l l
(' `

 

Unsworn Declaration
1'7'exas C/‘vil Practice and Remedies Code, Sect/'on 132.001)

My name is: W\ll£t((,i t)&§ D\/\i< € MO LiNP(VBLH 6{/\(,1¢5120{`0 /1€»(&5 7@1'={53
_ ' StreetAddress _City 1 n State Zip Code
and \/ti l"\cric/’<.
Counlry /

 

 

 

(/f you are incarcerated, you must also include the following ln/on'nation.)

My inmate identifying number. if any, is: _@1{0\§9~\1@
l am presently incarcerated ln: LlND§CL\ 8’1(/‘\’('$ jWi 1/1~'1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J Correctlons Unit Name _
in; ’rr¢i 6 iit/14 Tean 'l(@LlSB .
Cily ' County State Zip Code
l declare under penalty of perjury that all lnformatlon in the attached document titled,
. Sall»[(/`/\ \/\1 llv(\(l/\/l‘i D\VFiDA\/`| _1/ , is true and correct.
l Namo of Document g
eigned in rim/14 county, €>120 SW 30 359 (2003); FRANi'\' FoQ D€S`tt,r~il>fi 101\1 ot¢ ’\'ti€ Q(>,i,ofl> OtJ AW£GL . is true and correct.
I\_Iame of Document
Signed in - S.jM A` County, l QX/‘f_$' . _
County State

onthisdate: OS_ __l 13 /_LL

Month Day Year V`%//

Your”SigrLature

Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 132.001, an unsworn declaration may be
used in lieu of a written sworn declaration, venf cat1on cert1f cat1on oath, or affidavit required by statute or
required by a rule, order, or requirement adopted as provided by law. This provision does not apply to an
oath of office or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public. An
unsworn declaration made under this section must be 1) in writing, 2) signed by the person making the
declaration as true under penalty of perjury and 3) in substantially the form used above.

© TexasLawHelp.org - Unsworn Declaration, August 2012 &\ _ Page 1 of 1

k

Cause No. 2013-437035

The State of Texas l ln the 137th District
Vs. Court of
Marques D. Molinar ' Lubbock Co. Texas

l\/loTioN To SuPPR"Ess EvipENcE

The petitioner Marques D. |\/|olinar in the above entitled and numbered
cause moves this honorable court to suppress the following evidence pursuant to
Art. 18.13 And 18.19 of the Texas Code of Criminai Procedure.

1. All tangible evidence seized by law enforcement officers or others in
connection with the detention and arrest of the defendant in this case.

2. A|| written and oral statements made by the defendant to any law
enforcement officers or others in connection with this cas'e.

3. Testimony of law enforcement officers or others concerning any action
of the defendant while under'detention or arrest in connection with this
case. '

4. Testimony of law enforcement officers or other concerning the tangible
evidence or statements to'which reference was made above.

In support of this motion the defendant not petitioner will show this
court the following:

The detention and subsequent arrest of the petitioner was illegal and
in violation of the Fourth, Firth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution
of the United States and Chapter 14 of the Texas Code of Criminai Procedure (see)
FRANKS V. DELAwARE, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)§

Any- tangible evidence seized without lawful warrant probable cause
or other lawful authority in violation of the petitioners rights under the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Art. |. Section 9 of
the constitution of the State of Texas. And Chapter 14 and 38 of the Texas Code of

Criminai Procedure. _ 1
7 i ? ’ ' ' `. YC`§‘Q 1 o§, g`

Any statements obtained from defendant were obtained in violation
of defendant's rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, And Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution Art 1. Section9. 10. and 19 of th_e Constitution of
the State of Texas and Chapter 14 and articles 38.22 and 38.23 of the Texas Code
of Criminai Procedure.

1v.
All evidence and testimonies-as the result of this arrest would be the
4 product of a violation of petitioners Rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and v
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Artic|e 1l Section 9.10
and 19 of the Constitution of the State of Texas and Chapter 14 and Articles
38.21, 38.22 and 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminai Procedure.

Wherefore, the petitioner prays this honorable court find the detention
and subsequent arrest of petitioner where unlawful and that any and all evidence
tangible and intangible oral or otherwise obtained as a result of said detention
and arrest be suppressed and excluded from evidence in this case.

Res ectfu|ly Submi

     

Petitione iling Pro' Se

. 9\3 _ _ n j etrarzt£a

Unsworn Declaration
1' Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Section 132. 001)

My name is: Y`(\_O~('q V\~Q § b L/\iLii'i jutil§i)OfO 41_€7@1'§ 719“1§@

Street Address City State Zip Code

andi/iit*ieii §il¥i‘i$ cf iitii\t,titl\ .

Country

 

 

(/f you are incarcerated, you must also include the following infon'nation.)
My inmate identifying number, if any, is: © i \’\(`@§$ E\"\HQN("€/ . is true and correct.

Name &f Document

Signed in /\1,1A’C 1< County, _/1'€7§@§

Coun

onthisdate: 'US/ 15 / 515 .

Month Da y Year

State

tMO/wrr)ta /Mpél/\:W»

Yo ur Slg?;ture

Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 132.001. an unsworn declaration may be
used in lieu of a written sworn declaration, verification certification, oath, or affidavit required by statute or
required by a ru|e. order, or requirement adopted as provided by law. This provision does not apply to an
oath of office or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public. An
unsworn declaration made under this section must be 1) in writing, 2) signed by the person making the
declaration as true under penalty of perjury and 3) in substantially the form used above.

o TexasLawHelp.org - Unsworn Declaration, August 2012 Page 1 of 1

 

41

. first No. ao\;i\- 131/,035»,¢1 s WR.,‘¢%;/ ;rq;z_@l

 

 

 

`.ii~\»i:\i§@\&$“b M§LiNA°Q ` ' 1 - `;:si_:i“ fine \'S`isi‘-\MQ is;i'(_i:<;inrcour‘i:
\/ ' .. 2 ‘ oF .
_'Sii»it Oi‘ Tei\rs `. _ " l i'_\r\siio ci< Couni‘~l 'i/€)La$

 

 

V€i\\'ioi~ie(s#o$evilo kr§ i_;ii`t___§ifmc§_&¢s wise

remote or trier run -uudusious ii LA\u ,'

 

 

 

 

 

/iW inc l)cbt¢tlillttsis/ Co_\iri' of Qtei`r~r\mii ftmi§ r» »‘\’MAS»'/.
AFTER n tQE\itE\l\l QF 1149 S_i’l‘hjE§ 'PKoFoSED Piid_i>/~ér$
OF tear Drnb coluccusioi~is oil 1_141,\/ ii is eiseth T\-tm' ’i}te=
. _sr_itre sortscsc_ist<)s__i-)lis€;i1111210<31€_1$511res_<)\¢_\.ctttl_r\rt>»Q_ccit.sr£ii\i.i_izC-tai_W
wineil`\t_lts to s_u??r>r_tr its er

iton:rss_rt€s_i_iea_ai_u_.nte_@ctevsliu,c ' ’
_I

 

 

 

, rome wounds is~i mrtrueanrsc_’ttrnsainte__
\121_13_12121§1$ termed 11' 15_1:dattciuacis__~ns*uo:l_tltO\/rbrue_tite
._bEr’_E®ne_td_yu_iii_t_\_ebedda/ce__uor_tcc*oi=_tue_fl_tr_sms:atet>_zits_
jideu_tc_t_tt:iir_\ie_he&omucs__-EQR 131€0151181,€ Cause,jttc_S_eotceb ’

 

 

 

- 1 /i'i:"'
f `Do\.tag A_ op Li' . `OK`) e_

 

iiitism/s\:isls%_€mvii_t_feii_v_@gmss'iti€_i>_€_€aAQ,Q111111111111/ €€QtirtMe/ii's A_cu~/smimoA/AL Eisssm
:riiiiiscmss see woe¢isbxssubsEaueNr_\‘-'*thc,t E;miles_
sitosrsii Es%tjiiitr\irsie scitthT_W/iiys TH E Vaosi: cuTs€iR S
' timSs111T111sT_1GNALsREilsu\K€NiEN]s;[ossto\_witnesqu
1 s\?i&os cas sss Sti\\\\i)tm>_o_FssTHE ss\_ liws T\MS sis\ibi`icti\sss
chtsisos\ilss\ls\im~io 1iT iuRiSs dit:\?iol\is\$_s\/s(is isi$ (5€© N\\)\R____________\§
sV. 511\11:-, .'1"1§ §\N 361 11511¢1_§_@1>
_ _ Tiit LiJfh iisiii_€iitstwt tit Ttt€ twist 1)1110/\1§,
._011 Tti/ 1/_11\1`11_6® %_Tt Tt\_i<.`r. N© Wiiimi

’sSst\ riitstssi/i wit mi 11?011 W<)i€tiiistiuit."

S\)\t?\mét\!:i iyroiioiioit M\/i$€ \1¢\15_§§_ 011s1 _©_i;sisit£t

s\1i1iii1s\ \ii)insci\ti'i)r\i in trilt& sSs6s1I\_1sc_i_1_@1t1¢i sciz€ssti€N\S
sCi£sSCst1i)tci 11\1 'isii@ aisi\ DiA\n`i’ '

/Vfo’\’é,s<' twi' 66 015 YRQBO\Ei£_Q,UiiA&_Q. it\i onssa.-i>-Q`lci#\!i`ii igs€éi(&si/s\ss
`sWarsro.nissi§ililiAthBsSi\mi itt ew$}i`{ \/ERF1ABLE ad 01n 011.‘i'11\01i `
ittcii{o~ _O;itss ii\t»ss siits&tlisst;otsiroi€i maine Siiomici i>t oii>ie 'io i>e,\
11111s\1si1th\eci/ss`i0ss5i\@\/\1ssT11€ss/>1CT1/1A1 1111/111)\156`11)1\\ 01¢ »mi¢ sFi-'€/\\sF ~111AT
_izii\s\{s€s_cqaoii~bs F_<)R 1116 PRC'PGQ/»moi 011 1’11; Stmw 1A11>1121zpm11 1>11¢€1>¢11117_

s“\'_o Qccmie§f fit/11 nies N\Aei;s/s§gfsf,ss G&¢tif__iiq_ _1_1sasi2 f _`e;$ \1s\11T11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kind 150i\6i’|0N_0_\Z_MT€1Q /.sSeoirci\sssw\oi 3€121= Poiri`\c\iiar `1'i'2~\5 cises_csi'i`i)es_csi,ss
igstitii_sss)t"" Ttit_ALitt\Q,i>_s»\Rouii\/is 1/1121i tea 1720_21111111 must situ/uscs
.s ADE_<&WAI€\¢( migrant ’itie comii\issiviitoFss/i_¢i€f»iisso{€€/i\s$s€ssl1\1ssl\ ssV_\}i\\/_
s\l\ii»_\wt\ i`cu\/_E_S ifiN AQL\A§Q_SMFchtii_' No‘_iM 1509 ’i'\/ii" ?R@P€Rajii@(\i Osi"sss )E\ss

rfcng 9~ eis ‘~i ,:')\(\D " `

 

 

 

 

 

.1>_&1¢_§1\_13&,_;1;\:_15_ D_e€e_mim:r c1100.s_05 10 e'sme@iig 1»1;5 co~sT{TMn`@NQ_/_
91911»11' TO ?_KOCQ€A T'o T_&;A_L_ / ‘

’\'_15€_§6_§0_§_€ weigel/451 ‘11-1€` SEARCH \/\/15(1011+ 09910[14\/)‘?'514011}@/_
\1111\10 0\€501`1\111)1\1\0 \00_11<1_`10_1>1__0\0_1_€__15&1> 1109 111011 1110 011:1=1,/11\11'
_r/_\0_1'11\_I\_C_1>__ 'C\»\€ ?€1111_0_1\10( 111/_0_15 11¢\10\\1001 11\\ 1116 A\,L€911:’D Co)~lTro(Ql
§7_11§,0_11015_'1:_._:[~ 10111\/101101_1 \11_51_15`11,1 Ne€z>_€_> 10 1\\01 01~11\( \/1;12`11:\/ 11501
_1<_\0+ 121/11 11190_10 020@1111\( '11\\10121\/\ 1110 %1131`101~1:§ 00 me 1\1010110_€_ Aw\l>_
_\N\»\AT (`QA\I€ CU\\/l§_£ FO§ '1'\»1€ r\om_€ 19\{1$\%`.-/../01\ §€011¢£1 maj §§1£011'@ oz
_'EKOE_€ELT\(_ AS\M€\| A»S P(€o_\/_EDC ’[1/§€ A_/CCMS€L( \N1T1J1 A§\ opanTu/~HT\/ TG

 

 

_t\A\_/_€___c_om?_msoc\/ §1101,€$$ 10 Q&FAM \/\/}TM€___SS€S 111 1115 wmon `1F 1b1
_1=3_€_915_01>1/101; AL`1B1 D§r€MS€ 91151’ Coc\\c€@MM£-, 1413 1115/10 F11<00_1_5 AT
.:\'ML¢ --’1'11~1&€ `11\1 Qu€_$“`m\\ '
\11`11’1101/11 ?§0\111011\101 A 'mA( W€V€ 012 100151’10_1\1'_1>F '\’_1:10~’
Ame§T 1101 1111 17€_111`101\1€1 1103 0011160 'Pm>z,§ w01_1cc 011¢1>
1116 1>1’§11__‘11\1 10 1101\1€ 00011711150§~1 ’1’§0€0$$ 1010/00170§1: 1
_0011_\0 1\10]\ 011\\111511\109;_~25 111 1518 FA\10§.A 1099 911/\€/\\01/1:'_/1/1’
\/_11_)__\091101\1__\1\1_11`1011 011_11321§1 01 §§23111>`10€ /0 1413 951\,`1+\1 510
D§Ea§b_§m\szm 1\1:11>11§§1 1110_§0_11-_$_€_§1_01 561/mms 115 1116
F\F¢lb¥\\i\'\’ \1\11»11"01\ `§_LA_?_VOQT® ’V_§\E SEARCH NARRAMT'_CM$}NL-, 14
§>_€_F_<-,cT 01 1111 C01\\€1'11111`101111'0 1\1111“110€ 11\1111`_0\1 R€_\\\b€§s 11119/ `
_Sjw\fo\(\ *\!\10.111011`\' \IO`\.C\ ' _ _ 4
' ` THE§@_F_Q§E THC R__L1c191_1\1_1_§ 3 ‘91§0111105 F@§ KEL§E\'/
50000 _12.€ 1000/910_1> 115 11515_0_0 /1$ 1119 -\\/\<>11`<)1\1 10 §111>1>12€55
__91\,_L_E_\/_\D>€NLE 9191‘<1\1€5 1018 115€ F?c$u\l:r 015 THE OoMSUTMI'oM/H/
.L‘EF_ECL\_\\\__{\J<€ _SEA§<;_§ _N01_101/_1T__015Vc\10{1111'-1,.1 9 `

S\QN@A!_TWL 14 ' 0101\{ 1110 M”\`( v /_;ZO\‘J._~
gap 3 09 L} §\'_-} _~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q€§'P€_CF F¢ALL\{ Subav\ \`Hc[

 

\Ma/LM@; Maémr/L

AWL ¢<;¢>