Summary
relying on Rodriguez and holding that drug dog's alert outside the garage area of the home provided probable cause to search
Summary of this case from Romo v. StateOpinion
No. 14-03-00193-CR.
Opinion filed February 12, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 183rd District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 903,135. Affirmed.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices ANDERSON and SEYMORE.
OPINION
Appellant Kristian Lehr Stauffer appeals from the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of her residence on October 4, 2000. Following the denial of her motion, appellant waived a jury and entered a plea of guilty to the charged offense of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine. The trial court deferred adjudication of appellant's guilt, and she was placed under community supervision for ten years and fined $25,000 dollars. Appellant raises essentially two issues in connection with the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress: (1) whether the "dog sniff" of her residence was legal, and (2) whether the search warrant was invalid because the affidavit supporting probable cause contained falsehoods, misrepresentations, and omissions. Before addressing these issues, however, we consider two issues presented by the State for review: (1) whether appellant waived her right to appeal by pleading guilty, and (2) whether appellant's state constitutional claims present nothing for review. We affirm.
The State's Issues
First, the State, citing Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000), argues that a valid guilty plea waives the right to appeal a claim of error when the judgment of guilt was rendered independent of, and not supported by, the error. Even if a defendant initially waives the right to appeal, (s)he is not prevented from appealing if the trial court consents. Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 617 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). The record reflects that the trial court here certified appellant's right to appeal. Therefore, the State's first issue is without merit. Second, the State argues that appellant's state constitutional claims are inadequately briefed because she failed to provide any argument or authority regarding how the protections under the Texas Constitution differ from those under the United States Constitution. Thus, it argues, her state constitutional claims are not properly presented for review. See Ex parte Fierro, 79 S.W.3d 54, 61 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). While no such analysis appears concerning the legality of the dog sniff, we find appellant's discussion concerning the alleged inaccuracies in the affidavit to be adequately briefed. We therefore will consider below appellant's state constitutional claims with respect to her contentions regarding the alleged falsehoods, misrepresentations, and omissions in the affidavit.The Legality of the Dog Sniff
In the first five issues, appellant argues that the trial court erred in not finding that the sniff conducted by Deputy Preston Foose of the Harris County Sheriff's Department with his drug-detection dog, Rocky, was an unlawful search. We review a motion to suppress ruling for abuse of discretion. Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the ruling, and give almost total deference to the trial court's determination of historical facts which the record supports, especially when factual findings are based on credibility and demeanor. Id. We review de novo the trial court's application of law to facts. Id. First, appellant contends that the officer's entry onto her property was unlawful, citing Bower v. State, 769 S.W.2d 887, 897 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989), apparently for the proposition that an officer entering the property must have an "honest intent of asking questions of the occupant thereof." But an officer's subjective motivations will never invalidate objectively justifiable behavior under the Fourth Amendment. Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538, 542 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary probable-cause analysis under the Fourth Amendment. Id. Appellant's first contention is therefore without merit. Second, appellant contends that she had a legitimate expectation of privacy within the confines of her own property, citing, inter alia, United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1366-67 (2d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 818 (1986), and Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). This Court, however, has already considered and rejected a similar argument advanced in Porter v. State, 93 S.W.3d 342, 346-47 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd). For the reasons stated therein, we hold that appellant's second contention is without merit. Third, appellant contends that the trial court erred in not finding that the drug-detection dog, Rocky, was insufficiently qualified to perform the sniff of the areas immediately outside appellant's residence. We have previously noted that the United States Supreme Court "has failed to establish guidelines for the reliability of `sniff' searches . . .". See Josey v. State, 981 S.W.2d 831, 845 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd). The Fifth Circuit, however, has addressed the reliability issue on several occasions. See, e.g., United States v. Daniel, 982 F.2d 146 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Williams, 69 F.3d 27 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1182 (1996); United States v. Gonzales, 79 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Sanchez-Pena, 336 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2003). Citing Daniel, the Williams court held a showing of the dog's training and reliability is not required. 69 F.3d at 28. The affidavit in this case recites the following:On October 4, 2000, I spoke with P. Foose, a peace officer employed by the Harris County Sheriff's Department as a narcotics dog handler. He stated that his canine partner is Rocky. He is a certified narcotics dog handler and Rocky is a certified narcotics detection dog and the Texas K-9 Police Association certifies them both. Rocky is trained to detect the odor of marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin.Under Daniel, this information clearly constitutes a substantial basis for the issuance of a warrant. See 982 F.2d at 151-52. Appellant also challenges the adequacy of Rocky's training and questions whether the dog was reliable enough to make an effective alert. She contends that Rocky was not certified by any governmental entity, was not trained to alert only on unlawful substances, and was unable to distinguish methamphetamine from amphetamine. Because Rocky's certification is a determination of historical fact supported by the record, we defer to the finding made by the trial court. See Balentine, 71 S.W.3d at 768. Our sister court has previously held that because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy under these circumstances, an alert by a drug-detection dog outside a person's residence is sufficient to provide probable cause to search the site. Rodriguez v. State, 106 S.W.3d 224, 229 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd). In the present case, Rocky alerted outside the garage area of the home, thereby providing probable cause to search. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's issues one through five.