Case Name: The STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Charles Lee WAGNER, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1991-05-29
Citations: 810 S.W.2d 207
Docket Number: No. 724-90
Parties: The STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Charles Lee WAGNER, Appellee.
Judges: BAIRD, J., dissents.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 810
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
The STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Charles Lee WAGNER, Appellee.
No. 724-90.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
May 29, 1991.
John Alan Goren, Lawrence G. Boyd, Robert M. Clark, Jr., Dallas, for appellant.
John Vance, Dist. Atty., Pamela Sullivan Berdanier, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
McCORMICK, Presiding Judge.
After a preliminary hearing, a County Court judge in Dallas held that evidence to be used against appellee, Charles Lee Wagner, obtained through a sobriety checkpoint stop, was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The State appealed and the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. State v. Wagner, 791 S.W.2d 573 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990). The State then sought discretionary review from this Court asking that we examine the Court of Appeals' holding in light of Michigan v. Sitz, - U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). We granted the State's petition.
The Court of Appeals principally relied upon Higbie v. State, 780 S.W.2d 228 (Tex. Cr.App.1989) (plurality opinion), to find that stopping appellee's ear at a sobriety check point by police officers "was not based on reasonable suspicion but was designed to be preemptive in nature and premised on nothing more that inarticulate facts — hunches that criminal conduct would occur." 791 S.W.2d at 576. As such, the Court of Appeals concluded that the stop "was an infringement of individual freedom of privacy and travel." Id.
In King v. State, 800 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), we determined that Higbie, along with its progenitors from this Court, had been overruled by Michigan v. Sitz to the extent that such cases purported to be based upon the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 800 S.W.2d at 529. Accordingly, to the extent that the Court of Appeals decision relied upon Hig-bie, it is reversed.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for consideration in light of Michigan v. Sitz, supra, and King v. State, supra.
BAIRD, J., dissents.
. We understand this to be a holding that appel-lee's Fourth Amendment rights were violated since this is the issue he raised in the trial court.