Background
Police received multiple tips—including from Crime Stoppers, a concerned citizen, and another arrestee—that a man nicknamed “Kiddo” was selling drugs from apartment #112 at the Sierra Hermosa Apartments. An investigation of the Facebook profile “TrapRich Kiddo” identified the man as Levarone Antwaun Edwards. The profile contained pictures of Edwards with firearms and what appeared to be marijuana inside an apartment matching the layout of those in the complex.
Officers with the Fort Worth Police Department (FWPD) conducted surveillance and used a confidential informant (CI) to perform two “controlled buys” of fentanyl from the apartment. During the investigation, Edwards gave the CI his phone number for future purchases. Following the controlled buys, police obtained search warrants for the apartment and for Edwards’s cell phone. The search of the apartment uncovered large, dealer-quantity amounts of fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin, along with digital scales, firearms, and cash.
A jury found Edwards guilty of four counts of manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance. He was sentenced to forty-five years in prison for each count. Edwards appealed, arguing primarily that the evidence found in his apartment and on his cell phone should have been suppressed because the affidavits supporting the search warrants lacked probable cause.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, rejecting all of Edwards’s arguments. The court held that the trial court properly denied the motions to suppress evidence. Applying a deferential, “totality of the circumstances” standard, the court found that the affidavit for the apartment search provided a substantial basis for the magistrate’s finding of probable cause. The affidavit detailed the Crime Stoppers tip, corroboration from other sources, the officer’s own surveillance, and two successful controlled buys conducted by a reliable CI. The court concluded that these facts established a “fair probability” that drugs would be found in the apartment.
Similarly, the court upheld the search of Edwards’s cell phone. The supporting affidavit noted that Edwards was arrested while holding the phone, had used it to communicate with the CI to arrange drug deals, and used it to maintain a Facebook profile where he posed with drugs and guns. This was sufficient for the magistrate to reasonably infer that the phone contained evidence of drug trafficking.
The court also rejected Edwards’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. It held that the combination of circumstantial evidence—including the large “dealer amount quantities” of various drugs, the presence of scales and firearms, Edwards’s connection to the “trap house,” and text messages discussing drug sales—was more than enough for a rational jury to find he possessed the drugs with the intent to deliver.
Key Takeaways
- A search warrant affidavit based on information from multiple sources, including an anonymous tipster and a confidential informant, can establish probable cause if police independently corroborate key details through surveillance and controlled buys.
- Courts give “great deference” to a magistrate’s probable cause determination, reviewing the supporting affidavit based on the totality of the circumstances and reasonable inferences, not a “hypertechnical” interpretation.
- Intent to deliver controlled substances can be proven entirely through circumstantial evidence, such as the quantity of drugs, the manner of packaging, the presence of scales and firearms, and the defendant’s own communications about drug sales.
Why It Matters
This case is a straightforward application of established Fourth Amendment principles, illustrating how police can build probable cause for a search warrant. It shows that information from sources of varying reliability, when pieced together and corroborated by police investigation, can create a sturdy foundation for a warrant. The opinion reinforces that appellate courts are reluctant to second-guess a magistrate’s common-sense decision to issue a warrant when presented with a detailed affidavit connecting a specific location to ongoing criminal activity.
The ruling also highlights the power of circumstantial evidence in securing convictions for drug trafficking. For prosecutors, the case underscores that a conviction for “possession with intent to deliver” does not require direct observation of a sale. Instead, a compelling narrative built from the context of the arrest—the location, the quantities of drugs, associated paraphernalia, and digital evidence—is often sufficient to persuade a jury of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.