Court Opinion

ID: 9679753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:05:06.396363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:19.650264
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
concurring.
I reluctantly concur. I concur because while our Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Heitman v. State, 815 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) has reserved the right to interpret Tex.Const. art. I, § 9, we have no such interpretations as of yet. Therefore, whether this particular inventory search, in general, and the search of the key box, in particular, is unreasonable under our state constitution is an open question.
The entire question of whether the police may open closed containers within an automobile in order to inventory them is certainly subject to debate and unanswered insofar as our state constitution is concerned. While the protection of police from claims of misappropriating or losing property might very well be a recognized and legitimate purpose, that purpose must be weighted against each citizen’s right to privacy and the right to be free from unreasonable searches. Recently in Davis v. State, 829 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) the court held the search of a matchbox in a Terry1 stop violative of article I section 9 of the Texas Constitution since it was unreasonable for two armed police officers to fear a razor blade that might be contained in a matchbox. Then, arguendo, an officer’s fear of claims of misappropriation or loss of property from a key box may not justify the inventory of the key box. If the citizens are to be secure from unreasonable searches, then perhaps directing the offi*817cers to stop inventories at closed containers is an appropriate line to draw under our state constitution. As noted above, this is ultimately a matter for the court of criminal appeals to decide. Hopefully it will grant appellant’s petition for discretionary review on this matter.

. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).