State v. Stinnett

OPINION

COOPER, Justice.

Carl M. Stinnett, indicted for possession with intent to sell Schedule II and Schedule VI controlled substances, moved to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. The motion to suppress was posited on the ground that the description of the premises to be searched was general and “subjected many and various persons and their premises to a search.” The trial judge sustained the motion to suppress and dismissed the indictments. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that the search warrant as drawn was in essence a general warrant as it gave the…