Court Opinion

ID: 9765607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:09:54.222842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:12.208225
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority correctly states the law and correctly analyzes it vis á vis search and seizure. However, the admissibility of evidence, in this instance, the exclusion of evidence via a motion to suppress, is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. The trial court’s findings shall not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by the evidence. Lucas v. State, 791 S.W.2d 35, 47 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). The trial court could have found that the authority exercised — seizing the car so the officer could check the identification number — was not justified because the officer could have satisfied or confirmed his suspicions without increasing the intrusion beyond the scope of the initial detention. Under the totality of these circumstances, the trial court could have found that the officer failed to express reasonable articulable reasons for searching beyond Mr. Como to the interior of the vehicle. Accordingly, I would find no abuse of discretion. I would overrule the point of error and affirm the trial court’s ruling. The *135majority holds otherwise, therefore, I re-speetfully dissent.