Court Opinion

ID: 9661708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:47:11.785291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:32.856887
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
CLINTON, Judge.
On original submission, a panel opinion overruled appellant’s contention that heroin seized from his vehicle following a legitimate traffic stop was the product of an illegal search and hence inadmissible. The panel viewed the search of the vehicle as one made incident to a lawful arrest and cited Taylor v. State, 421 S.W.2d 403 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) and Imhoff v. State, 494 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) in support. In his motion for rehearing appellant stoutly contends that the search was not incident to arrest, arguing:
“ . . . The Appellant was at the rear of his pick up [sic] with his hands on the vehicle. The officers were presented with a valid, unexpired drivers [sic] license. The detention and investigation should have concluded at that time. . . ”
We granted leave to file in order to consider fully the contention and argument. For reasons about to be stated appellant’s motion for rehearing will be granted and the judgment reversed.
As pointed out in the panel opinion, the officers had sufficient probable cause to authorize the initial stop of appellant’s vehicle given their belief that appellant was speeding and, additionally, that he “rolled” through a stop sign. See V.A.T.S., Article 6701d, § 153. Beck v. State, 547 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Tores v. State, 518 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.Cr.App.1975) (running a stop sign held to authorize arrest); Wilson v. State, 511 S.W.2d 531 (Tex.Cr.App.1974) (running a red light). While this Court continues to revisit the doctrine of Taylor v. State, 421 S.W.2d 403 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), see, e. g., Duncantell v. State, 563 S.W.2d 252 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), it has examined each individual fact situation to determine that every movement made by an officer following a legitimate traffic stop is justified in fact and law, for the Supreme Court of the United States has not yet applied the “stop and frisk” principle to a moving motor vehicle. Indeed, the Supreme Court has only recently noted that citizens are not shorn of their rights under the Fourth Amendment “when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391 at 1401, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979).
Officer Dunahoe conducted a frontal area search of appellant’s vehicle after appellant had been safely removed to the rear of his vehicle, and placed in Officer Conroy’s charge. Officer Dunahoe noted that appellant did not have a weapon in his hands after he exited his vehicle and that his clothing and appearance did not evidence any showing that appellant was carrying a concealed weapon. Indeed, neither officer even bothered to frisk appellant notwithstanding their testimony that they were in fear of their safety at the time appellant was stepping from his own vehicle. Regardless, both officers now had appellant secured at the rear of the latter’s vehicle where appellant produced a valid Texas operator’s license, Dunahoe determined there were not outstanding warrants for him and appellant placed his hands, at the officers’ request, back on the rear fender of his vehicle. Though either officer had the unqualified right at that juncture to effect a body search of the appellant, Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973), as noted above, they chose not to. What, then, brought Officer Dunahoe back from their secure location to *327the door of appellant’s vehicle and impelled him to open it and then conduct a search of the front interior?
Contrary to the surmise of the panel opinion that Dunahoe was conducting “a search of the area under appellant’s immediate control,” Dunahoe testified in response to a question put by the prosecutor:
“Q. Why did you go over to the vehicle?
A. To search for a weapon to make sure that if we did cut him loose after writing him a ticket he didn’t get it or use it on us or possibly somebody else that may have been stopping him down the street.”
An almost identical rationale suggested in the dissenting opinion in Beck v. State, supra, at 269,1 was necessarily rejected by a majority of the Court then — just as it was earlier in Wilson v. State, 511 S.W.2d 531, 538 2 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
Moreover, the quoted testimony of Duna-hoe brings our fact situation within the doctrine of Thomas v. State, 572 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) so that the search was not incident to arrest.
In any event, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) controls disposition of this case. With appellant detained by Conroy at the rear of his vehicle, the area of its front interior was simply not within his immediate control. Beck and Wilson, supra.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted, his first two grounds of error are now sustained and the judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Before the court en banc.
ON STATE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

. The officer who searched a glove box there testified that “ . . if he had placed a weapon in here, then after the search we’d leave, he could have gone back to the box, retrieved whatever he placed there and done whatever harm he had on his mind if he had any” and that, accordingly, in searching the officer was looking out for his own protection.

. “Merely because a driver gets out of a car upon being stopped should not prevent an officer from protecting himself. If an officer decides not to take a traffic violator before a magistrate or to jail, the offender will get back into the car and it is quite possible that a weapon could be reached, and the officer could be shot.”