Case Name: Isaias LARA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1971-03-17
Citations: 469 S.W.2d 177
Docket Number: No. 43511
Parties: Isaias LARA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 469
Pages: 177–180

Head Matter:
Isaias LARA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 43511.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 17, 1971.
Rehearing Denied May 19, 1971.
Second Rehearing Denied June 29, 1971.
Harry A. Nass, Jr., T. P. Henley, San Antonio, for appellant.
Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Charles Butts and Sparta Bitsis, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
ODOM, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit: heroin; the punishment was assessed by a jury at life.
The sole ground of error urged by appellant is the legality of the arrest and the search incident thereto.
The state's evidence reflects that at approximately 4:30 P.M., on November 4, 1968, Officer P. R. Gonzales, a detective with the San Antonio Police, an officer with eleven years of experience, was patrolling in the vicinity of the five hundred block of Matamoros Street, a location known to him as frequented by dope addicts, he observed a parked car with the motor running. Then he noticed "a suspicious person there coming from the area of some vacant shacks."
"Q. Describe the condition of the shacks.
"A. Well, it's a — it's—
"Q. Without mentioning the contents or anything like that.
"A. It's just a vacant small houses, vacant, like rows of houses, little rooms — one-room type little apartments all together.
"Q. Were they suitable for habitation?
"A. No, sir.
"Q. Were they generally run down?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. And when you saw this individual outside the houses then what did you do, without saying what you said ? What did you do ?
"A. I stopped him and I asked for his identification, see what he was doing there, and after I talked to him, he didn't give me any. He said he didn't — he was going somewhere.
"Q. Don't go into what he said.
"A. Okay, sir.
"Q. After you had the conversation with the individual, then did you go back to your vehicle?
"A. Yes, sir. I went back to my vehicle because I noticed some suspicious persons — another party just to the —just north from where I was in the street.
"Q. What did you do when you got back in your vehicle?
"A. I called for assistance,
Officer Gonzales then testified that Officer Johnny Teran arrived in about five minutes and "We started walking towards these shacks."
"Q. Is this Matamoros Street?
"A. From Matamoros, right, the five hundred block, and there was one subject that we could see, and we started like getting over there real fast, or running or walking, I don't recall; and this man yelled something, you know. I didn't hear exactly what he said. He threw something that he had and he started running. And as soon as we,, got to this shack there was, we noticed, about five or six persons running in different directions.
"Q. Do you know the defendant in this case Isaías Lara?
"A. Yes, I do."
He further testified that one of the "subjects" that ran was Isaias Lara, the appellant; that Officer Teran apprehended the appellant; that in his opinion the appellant was under the influence of narcotics. A search of appellant revealed a capsule of heroin.
Officer Teran testified that he was dispatched to the scene where he met Officer Gonzales, and as they started walking toward the houses a "lookout" yelled something and about 5 or 6 "subjects" ran from one of the abandoned houses. The officers gave chase and he (Officer Teran) caught the appellant and handcuffed him to a stop sign, quickly searched him and found a pocket knife, then ran to apprehend others. After he and Officer Gonzales returned with other "subjects" they were all read a legal warning and searched. The heroin heretofore referred to was found on appellant. Officer Teran also testified that, in his opinion, appellant was under the influence of narcotics.
The house that the appellant and his companions ran from was known to the officers as a place used by "dope addicts." Officer Teran testified on appellant's pretrial motion to suppress evidence, that his suspicions were aroused, " like I said, we have made calls here before. We had received information from other people, reliable people that they had seen lot of subj ects, dope addicts going to that location and into the shacks and where they had gone in there and have used dope; and on previous occasions, I have gone there and we have arrested—I have arrested other subjects from this location. And while I have looked through these shacks I have seen all the evidence of the use of heroin. I have seen the burnt bottle caps. I found several empty boxes of those gelatin capsules, the boxes and the empty capsules and soda water bottles with water. On occasions I found just, I mean, old needles: all indications that they are using this location."
We hold that under all the circumstances herein observed by the officers and the facts known by them, they had probable cause to be suspicious and the arrest was authorized under Art. 14.03 Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., which provides:
"Any peace officer may arrest, without warrant, persons found in suspicious places and under circumstances which reasonably show that such persons have been guilty of some felony or breach of the peace, or threaten, or are about to commit some offense against the laws."
The arrest made under the provisions of Art. 14.03, supra, would authorize a search of appellant's person incident thereto and the fruits thereof were admissible in evidence. Alaniz v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 458 S.W.2d 813; Baity v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 305; Carter v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 445 S.W.2d 747; Sanchez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 438 S.W.2d 563; Laube v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 417 S.W.2d 288; Chambler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 416 S.W.2d 826. Appellant's complaint of the second search at the scene is without merit.
There being no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.