[Marcella]

“Um, no; this just shows that Texas has no sense of jurisprudence — if they cannot have those who are tasked with enforcing the law to keep the law then they have surrendered the integrity of the whole judicial system.”

Some people on this thread are happy to stomp on Texas but it is FEDERAL LAW that caused this judge's decision. Texas law is second to federal law just as every state is.

According to this federal law, there has to be a confidential informant before this entering without a warrant can be done. Evidently the police knew this informant, likely “their” informant. Bubba down at the bar can't call and get police to enter someone’s house without a warrant.

Change the federal law that caused this.

“...who cited as his grounds to reject Wehrenberg’s appeal the federal Independent Source Doctrine, “…a legally questionable concept that permits illegally seized evidence that was mentioned to police by a third party beforehand.”

“Writing for the majority, Criminal Appeals Court Judge Elsa Alcala agreed that, “…while Texas’ “exclusionary rule” bans illegally seized evidence from trial, federal precedent dictates that it can be introduced if it was first confirmed by an independent source.”

[FredZarguna]

The dissent is correct, and the majority is mistaken. The exigent circumstances required for the application of pertinent Federal case law did not obtain. This ruling is not going to survive five minutes in a Federal Court.

[OneWingedShark]

Texas law is second to federal law just as every state is.

Untrue.
The only time that a federal law can supersede a state law is when it has been made pursuant to the Constitution [for the United States].

Art 6, Para 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The 10th Amendment makes it quite clear that the powers not explicitly delegated remain the purview of the States (or the people).

[CodeToad]

“Some people on this thread are happy to stomp on Texas but it is FEDERAL LAW that caused this judge’s decision. Texas law is second to federal law just as every state is.”

WRONG!!! BZZZZ Fail civics, go to the back of the class. No State must follow an unconstitutional law. Their JOB is to not uphold the laws they believe are unconstitutional and let the feds sue the State to force them to follow it.