Court Opinion

ID: 9665175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:42:13.532438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:13.620989
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S second motion for rehearing.
MORRISON, Judge.
In view of the importance of the question raised and with the thought that we may not, in our two prior opinions herein, have placed sufficient emphasis upon the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, we have concluded it wise to write again on this matter.
The facts have been sufficiently stated.
The “Uniform Narcotic Drug Act,” adopted originally by the legislature of this state in 1937, appears as Article 725b, Vernon’s Annotated. Penal Code.
By such act, all narcotics possessed contrary to the terms of the act are held to be contraband.
By Section 15 thereof, all peace officers are. given the power, without warrant, “to enter and examine any buildings, vessels, cars, conveyances, vehicles, or other structures or places, when, they have reason to believe and do believe that any or either of same contain narcotic drugs * *
Also, by said section, such officers are given the authority, without warrant, to open and examine any box, parcel, etc., in the possession of any person, which they have reason to believe and do believe contains narcotic drugs.
It must be remembered that the officer saw the first bag of *222marijuana from outside the vehicle. Had this been a bottle of whiskey sitting on the front seat of the car, would we say that the officer had no right to reach in the car and take it? The Uniform Narcotic Drug Act gave him the right to open it once he had it in his hand.
After careful re-examination of the facts,' we remain convinced that the quoted portion of the officer’s testimony set forth in our opinion on rehearing constituted sufficient evidence that he had reason to believe, and did believe, that the automobile contained a narcotic drug such as to show no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in admitting the evidence of what he found therein.
We are indebted to appellant’s able counsel for his excellent briefs.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s second motion for rehearing is overruled.