Patterson, Samuel Crawford

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. PD-0322-21
SAMUEL CRAWFORD PATTERSON, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
BRAZOS COUNTY
KELLER, P.J., delivered the opinion of a unanimous Court.
The issue before us is whether the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is
satisfied if a warrant describes the place to be searched as a fraternity house as a whole without
specifying a suspect’s actual room in the house, but an incorporated affidavit provides both
descriptions. We hold that the particularity requirement is satisfied if an affidavit that is
incorporated into the warrant includes, somewhere, a specific description of the place that was
searched. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
PATTERSON–2
I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts
In the early morning hours of August 20, 2016, police and medics responded to multiple
emergency calls regarding a drug overdose at the Texas A&M Sigma Nu fraternity house. Callers
said that they saw drugs and that fraternity members did not want police to get involved. Upon
arrival, law enforcement discovered a fraternity brother deceased from an apparent overdose, so they
began treating the fraternity house as a murder scene. Police made three warrantless protective
sweeps of the fraternity house to make sure that the members were out of their rooms and in common
areas, as well as to determine if anyone else had overdosed or needed medical attention. During each
sweep, police saw narcotics and paraphernalia in plain view inside certain rooms and common areas.
Officers informed Investigator Garrett about their findings, and during the third warrantless
protective sweep, he saw contraband in Appellant’s room (#216). Instead of seizing the illegal
contraband, Investigator Garrett drafted a search warrant.
The search warrant identified the “suspected place” to be searched by giving a detailed
description of the outside appearance of the fraternity house.1 An affidavit was incorporated by and
1
Patterson v. State, No. 10-19-00243-CR, 2020 WL 7257069, at *6 (Tex. App.–Waco Dec.
9, 2020) (not designated for publication) (“A multi-story, multi-wing residence building located at
550 Fraternity Row, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. The residence is known as the Sigma
Nu Fraternity house and sits on the northeast corner of the Fraternity Row and Deacon Drive
intersection. The exterior consists of light beige siding, and light beige colored brick. The main
wing consists of a two story structure, with an open balcony with a wrought iron railing running the
full length of the front of the building. There is a doorway located in the center. There are two large
sized, multi-paned windows to both the right and left side of this doorway. Each window is further
described as having dark brown shutters to either side. The lower level holds the main entrance, also
centered in the building, with two large sized, multi-paned windows to both the right and left side
of this doorway. Each window is further described as having dark brown shutters to either side. The
lower level holds the main entrance, also centered in the building, with two large sized, multi-panned
(continued...)
PATTERSON–3
made part of the warrant for all purposes. The affidavit described the “SUSPECTED PLACE”
exactly as the warrant did. But also, in a separate place, the affidavit listed Appellant as “Said
Suspected Party #22.” And under “Synopsis of Investigation,” the affidavit described what
Investigator Garrett personally observed in Appellant’s room during the third warrantless protective
sweep: “Room #216 belonging to Said Suspected Party #22–coffee table: two small plastic baggies
with white colored residue, white powdery substance arranged in a line.”
A magistrate found probable cause and issued the search warrant. Investigator Garrett
executed the warrant and seized drugs from Appellant’s room, leading to Appellant being charged
with two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance. After a hearing, the trial court
denied Appellant’s motion to suppress. Appellant then pled guilty and was sentenced by the trial
court to two years on each count, probated for five years. Appellant appealed the trial court’s denial
of his suppression motion.
(...continued)
windows to both the right and left side of this doorway. The front of the residence building has six,
individual, brick pillars which reach from the ground to the top of the second story. These pillars
are made of beige colored brick. The two center most pillars are adorned with lighting sconces
which are positioned near the center of the pillar, height wise. Centered on the second level and
attached to the wrought iron railing are the two large, Greek letters for Sigma and Nu, which are dark
brown in color surrounded by a white outline. Directly below these letters, the numbers ‘550’ are
affixed. The main entrance into the residence building faces towards the southwest and consists of
two wooden doors. which open outwards. The doors are painted maroon in color; with the right side
door having a brown metal, latch style door knob with an attached electronic key pad positioned on
the left side of the door. Above the door latch is a brown metal keyhole for a deadbolt style locking
mechanism. The attached wing is also two storied and made up of beige colored brick. It is
positioned on the northwest side of the main building. The southwest facing side of the attached
wing holds four individual windows, two on each level, which consist of multi-paned windows and
dark brown colored shutters to each side. Said Suspected Place also includes locations outside of
the residence, such as garages, outbuildings, boxes, and other vehicles parked within the curtilage
of Said Suspected Place.”).
PATTERSON–4
B. Court of Appeals’s Decision2
The court of appeals held that the warrant’s description of the place to be searched violated
the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and that for that reason the trial court abused
its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress.3 Focusing on the fact that the affidavit’s
description of Appellant’s room did not appear under “suspected place” to be searched, the court of
appeals determined that neither the search warrant nor the affidavit identified Appellant’s room
within the fraternity house as a place to be searched; rather, they both described the entire fraternity
house and thus constituted a general warrant.4 The court of appeals held that the trial court abused
its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress, found the error harmful, and reversed his
conviction.5
II. ANALYSIS
The Fourth Amendment6 establishes a constitutional preference that a search be conducted
2
The court of appeals first addressed the question of whether Appellant had a privacy
interest in his room at the fraternity house. Id. at *5. The court found that a fraternity house is more
like a dormitory than a single-family residence, and Appellant therefore did have a privacy interest
in his room. Id. at *6. The issue of whether Appellant had a privacy interest in his room is not before
us.
3
Id. at *7.
4
Id.
5
Id. at *8.
6
“The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. CONST, amend. IV.
PATTERSON–5
pursuant to a warrant.7 Typically, the warrant process involves presenting to a neutral and detached
magistrate an affidavit that establishes probable cause to conduct a search.8 Probable cause exists
when, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a “fair probability” that contraband or evidence
of a crime will be found at the specified location.9 The legal concept that probable cause must relate
to a specific location is known as the particularity requirement, which is satisfied if the warrant
enables the officer to locate the property and distinguish it from other places in the community.10
The State argues that the particularity requirement was satisfied because the search warrant
incorporated the affidavit for all purposes, and even though the search warrant itself did not include
a description of Appellant’s room, the incorporated affidavit contained within its four corners a
description of Appellant’s room where law enforcement observed contraband in plain view. The
State further argues that the court of appeals read the affidavit in a “hyper-technical” manner rather
than a common-sense manner, focusing on the fact that the description of Appellant’s room was
contained in the body of the affidavit rather than in the first paragraph of the warrant and the
affidavit’s first page describing the “suspected place.” We agree with the State.
When a search warrant affidavit is incorporated into a search warrant, it becomes a part of,
and can be used to aid the description in, the search warrant.11 Although a reviewing court must look
7
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983); Jones v. State, 364 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2012).
8
Jones, 364 S.W.3d at 854.
9
Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
10
Bonds v. State, 403 S.W.3d 867, 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
11
Green v. State, 799 S.W.2d 756, 760 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (citing Phenix v. State, 488
(continued...)
PATTERSON–6
only to the four corners of the supporting affidavit, the reviewing court should regard the
magistrate’s decision to issue the warrant with great deference.12 After reviewing the supporting
affidavit in “a commonsensical and realistic manner,” a reviewing court must uphold the magistrate’s
decision as long as the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.13
The particularity requirement is satisfied when an incorporated affidavit is “sufficiently
specific to apprise the officers of where they were to conduct the searches.”14 In Affatato, officers
obtained a search warrant that authorized a search of the suspect’s apartment, outbuildings, and
curtilage, but it did not specifically describe the suspect’s garage, which was detached and separated
from the apartment by the parking lot and sidewalk.15 Nevertheless, police searched the suspect’s
garage because the affidavit–which was incorporated into the warrant–described the suspect’s
address, apartment number, and garage number, as well as a statement from the suspect’s girlfriend
that the suspect would return from the specified garage with drugs.16 The court of appeals held that
the affidavit’s language controlled over the warrant’s language because affidavits are generally more
(...continued)
S.W.2d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (holding that where a search warrant incorporates the supporting
affidavit and the affidavit describes the place to be searched with particularity, this is sufficient to
make the description of the place to be searched part of the warrant)).
12
State v. McLain, 337 S.W.3d 268, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
13
Id. See also Gates, 462 U.S. at 238.
14
Affatato v. State, 169 S.W.3d 313, 316 (Tex. App.–Austin 2005, no pet.) (see also
Palmer v. State, 614 S.W.2d 831, 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)).
15
Affatato, 169 S.W.3d at 316.
16
Id. at 317.
PATTERSON–7
specific and precise in reciting the information that an affiant knows.17 Due to the detailed
information regarding the garage in the incorporated affidavit, the court of appeals held that the
search was permissible.18
The purpose of an affidavit that is incorporated into a search warrant is to show probable
cause to search a particular place.19 In Saldivar, police obtained a search warrant to search a large
rural dwelling located on over a thousand acres.20 Although the warrant particularly described the
suspect’s house, it did not list the house under its section titled “to be searched;” rather, “to be
searched” listed “all other out buildings, structures, and vehicles located on this property.”21 But
the incorporated affidavit did not particularly describe any other structure besides the suspect’s
house. Instead, it listed suspicious observations about people entering and leaving the suspect’s
house with firearms and flammable liquids and other activities that were, in the affiant’s experience,
characteristic of operating a methamphetamine laboratory inside.22 The court of appeals held that
the incorporated affidavit set out facts that established probable cause to search the suspect’s house
and that the search was valid.23
When read in a common-sense manner, the affidavit, and therefore the warrant, described
17
Id.18
Id. at 318.
19
State v. Saldivar, 798 S.W.2d 872, 874 (Tex. App.–Austin 1990, pet. ref’d).
20
Id. at 873.
21
Id.
22
Id. at 874.
23
Id.
PATTERSON–8
Appellant’s room with sufficient particularity to establish probable cause to search. Although the
search warrant and the affidavit both described the entire fraternity house in the section titled
“suspected place,” the incorporated affidavit proceeded to identify Appellant as “Said Suspected
Party #22” and listed the contraband that officers saw in Appellant’s particular room. This portion
of the incorporated affidavit established probable cause and satisfied the particularity requirement
because it was sufficiently specific to inform the officers of where they were to search and what they
should expect to find. To invalidate this search by focusing solely on the section of the warrant and
incorporated affidavit titled “suspected place” would constitute reading the warrant in a “hyper-
technical” manner, rather than the common-sense approach that the law requires.24
III. CONCLUSION
We reverse the court of appeals’s judgment and remand the case to that court to address
Appellant’s remaining complaints.
DELIVERED: March 30, 2022
Publish
24
McLain, 337 S.W.3d at 271.