Court Opinion

ID: 9666758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:27:02.721959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:32.558682
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that the search of the shirt pocket and the magnetic key container was justified as a search incident to arrest relying on Williams v. State, 726 S.W.2d 99 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). They determine that Williams is “highly persuasive and probably controlling.” I agree that it may be highly persuasive, but disagree that it is necessarily controlling. A very wide reading of Williams would seem to indicate that a peace officer can search the person and vehicle of any motorist stopped for any traffic violation except speeding. This is predicated on the officer’s ability to arrest and jail every offender except speeders. TEX.REV. CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 6701d, sec. 148(a) (Vernon Supp.1987) does not envision that every stop for a traffic violation is an arrest. After a stop the officer has the discretion, in every offense except speeding, to issue a written summons or effectuate a custodial arrest. Although Williams quotes the language in Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 98 S.Ct. 1717, 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978), the footnote seems to indicate that the court will look, to some extent, to the facts leading up to and surrounding the arrest.
In the instant case, the officer was perfectly justified in stopping the motorcycle rider for failure to signal for a turn. TEX. REV. CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 6701d, sec. 68 (Vernon 1977). He was further justified to pat down the rider for weapons. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Once he found the magnetic key container, I do not believe he was justified in searching further. The officer admitted he had not placed the rider under custodial arrest at that moment. He stated it was his policy to make the determination later as to whether or not he would issue a summons or effect a custodial arrest. In the officer’s own words:
Q. And when you intended to pull him over and in fact did pull him over for the traffic violation, did you expect or did you have any reason to believe that there was criminal activity going on other than the traffic violation?
A. No, ma’am.
Q. Did you intend to arrest him at that time for the traffic violation?
A. No, ma’am.
Q. Was it your intention strictly to write him a traffic citation and allow him to leave?
A. No, ma’am.
Q. What was it your intention to do?
A. My intention was to investigate the traffic offense and determine if the citation was necessary or an arrest was necessary. At the time I did not know what I was going to do.
[[Image here]]
Q. Okay. Upon viewing an operator attempt to make a right hand turn without signaling and upon your observance of a traffic violation happening at that time, do you normally intend to arrest the op*768erator of that vehicle and place that person in custody?
A. There is normally no intention at the time I observe a traffic violation other than to investigate the offense. I leave my mind open.
Q. And was your mind open also at the time that you witnessed Mr. Layton fail to make his right hand turn signal?
A. Yes, ma’am. It deserved investigation at that point. That was all I was doing.
Absent a search incident to arrest or an inventory of the person following a valid arrest and before incarceration, probable cause for the search was required. Probable cause is more than suspicion or hunch. The officer very candidly supplied his reason for opening the key container. He stated:
Q. All right. Thank you. Prior to opening the keycase, did you ask Mr. Layton what was inside?
A. No, ma’am.
Q. Was it merely then your curiosity as to the comment that he had made that caused you to open up that keycase?
A. I am having a little trouble with the word ‘curiosity’ but I suppose that pretty well describes it. Suspicion would be a more accurate term.
[[Image here]]
Q. Okay. At what point did you open the keycase, before he made the remark or after?
A. Before or after he made the remark, immediately upon my removing it and it becoming visible, he made the remark. If you ask me to number the things that happened, I would say I reached into his pocket, pulled out the keycase, he looked at it, and then he made the remark.
Q. You opened it only after he had made the remark?
A. Yes, sir. That’s what made me suspicious of what the keycase being more than just simply a weapon by which he might harm me or not.
This does not amount to probable cause to search the keycase. The motion to suppress should have been granted. For the reasons stated, I would sustain the points of error. The majority having not done so, I respectfully dissent.