Wehrenberg v. State
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
416 S.W.3d 458 (2013)
- Written by Paul Neel, JD
Facts
Officers had been surveilling a house for 30 days when a confidential informant told the officers that the house’s occupants would be manufacturing methamphetamine that night. A few hours after receiving this information, officers entered the house without a warrant or the owner’s consent. Officers detained Wehrenberg (defendant) among the house’s occupants and held the occupants outside while the officers conducted a protective sweep of the house. An hour and a half later, officers obtained a warrant to search the house based on a warrant affidavit that included the confidential informant’s information but did not mention the officers’ entry into the house. During their execution of the warrant, officers found methamphetamine and equipment and chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine. The state (plaintiff) charged Wehrenberg with possession of methamphetamine and possession of chemicals with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. Wehrenberg moved to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied the motion because the warrant affidavit did not mention the officers’ unlawful entry into the house. Wehrenberg was convicted and appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alcala, J.)
Concurrence (Price, J.)
Dissent (Meyers, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
