{"id":5268,"date":"2011-05-02T10:30:54","date_gmt":"2011-03-10T09:47:51","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-03-10T09:47:51","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5268","title":{"rendered":"TX: Procedural default applies to state&#8217;s failure to raise standing in trial court"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Procedural default applies to the state in failing to raise standing in the trial court such that it cannot raise standing for the first time on appeal. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cca.courts.state.tx.us\/opinions\/OpinionSearch.asp?CaseNumberNo=&amp;DateWritten=&amp;DateWritten2=&amp;OpinionText=rhinehart\">State v. Rhinehart<\/a>, 333 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011): <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>To summarize, in this case, we apply ordinary rules of procedural default to decide that the State, as the losing party in the criminal district court, could not raise for the first time on appeal a claim that there was no valid basis for the criminal district court to have quashed the indictment. We decline to apply, in this case, the Fourth Amendment standing rule of Rakas which, in any event, does not clearly support the proposition that the State should be permitted to raise this claim for the first time on appeal, particularly since the State chose to litigate only the due-diligence issue in the criminal district court thus, in effect, conceding that this might be a valid basis for quashing the indictment. See <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=17799359578516732373&amp;q=steagald&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Steagald<\/a>, 451 U.S. at 209-11. Appellee\u2019s first ground for review is sustained.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The search warrant was not issued on \u201ca paucity of fact\u201d; there were two controlled buys from the premises, and that was probable cause. United States v. Young, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22606 (M.D. Fla. February 18, 2011).*<\/p>\n<p>Exigent circumstances for a warrantless entry when, during a knock-and-talk, a man ran from the residence and they could smell marijuana. United States v. Rodriguez-Gonazalez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22750 (W.D. Mo. February 15, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5268\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5268\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}