Case Name: TENDIA v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1927-04-27
Citations: 13 S.W.2d 849
Docket Number: No. 10229
Parties: TENDIA v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 13
Pages: 849–852

Head Matter:
TENDIA v. STATE.
(No. 10229.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 27, 1927.
Rehearing Granted Feb. 6, 1929.
Dissenting Opinion Feb. 6, 1929.
L. D. Hill and T. B. Monroe; both of San Antonio, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Byles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Del Rio, for tbe State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Tbe conviction is for tbe unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor ; punishment fixed at confinement in tbe penitentiary for a period of one year.
A summary of tbe facts proved is as follows: Allen, tbe sheriff, having two Mexicans in bis custody and while traveling upon tbe public road, met an automobile driven by tbe appellant, Tendía. Tbe sheriff was not acquainted with tbe appellant, but tbe latter was acquainted with one of tbe Mexicans who was ⅛ tbe sheriff's car. As be approached he waved bis band, indicating that be desired that the ear driven by tbe sheriff be stopped. It was stopped and tbe. appellant got out of bis car, walked to that occupied by tbe sheriff, and tbe Mexicans engaged in a conversation with each other, it appears that tbe appellant was a stranger in tbe country and did not know tbe sheriff. At least this is the inference drawn from tbe evidence. Without disclosing bis identity as an officer, the sheriff, while the appellant was conversing with one of the occupants of tbe sheriff's car, got out and walked to tbe ear of tbe appellant, which was standing on tbe road. 'He observed a grass sack on tbe floor of tbe car between tbe front and back seats. Observing that the grass sack contained something, the sheriff reached his hand into the car, raised the sack, and observed a five-gallon jug which was laying on its side. He straightened the jug up and removed the stopper and found that it contained whisky. In making his observations he removed nothing. The sack was observable from his position in the road. At some time during the transaction, the sheriff asked the appellant what he had, and the appellant said it was water. According to the sheriff's best recollection, this occurred at the time he straightened the jug up.
Objection to the officer's testimony was made upon the ground that he was not possessed of a search warrant, and that the information which he conveyed to the jury was acquired in violation of the statutes of this state; also the Constitution of this state and the United States. Appellant refers to article 1, § 9, of the Bill of Rights, forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures "without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation"; also article 4a, Q, C. P. 1925,' forbidding search without a warrant, and article 727a, O. C. P. 1925, which reads as follows: "No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provision of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of. the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case."
Under the law of this state, we have held in the case of Odenthal v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 290 S. W. 743, and Battle v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 568, 290 S. W. 762, and now reassert, that neither the Constitution of the state nor the statutes mentioned are violated in the search of an automobile upon the public road which is engaged in the transportation of intoxicating liquor, when the officer making the search has probable cause therefor. By "probable cause" is meant: "A reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged." Landa v. Obert, 45 Tex. 539.
Another definition is: "If the facts and circumstances before the officer are such as to warrant a man of prudence and caution in believing that an offense has been committed, it is sufficient." See Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790.
It is believed that the facts developed in the present instance ate sufficient to meet the measure of the law touching probable cause; in other words, that the circumstances in the possession of the sheriff were sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the appellant was transporting intoxicating liquor in his automobile.
Because the evidence is deemed sufficient to warrant the search by virtue of the authorities mentioned, and the facts disclosed are sufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is affirmed.