Court Opinion

ID: 9863330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:24:41.450424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:41:12.987067
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Judge,
dissenting.
Under the guise of limiting Gill v. State, 625 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), to its (rather unique) facts the majority today, in two cases,1 as a practical matter overrules Gill. Because the reasons given in justification may not ring quite true to the careful reader, a closer analysis is necessary to see if this is in fact a decision motivated by stare decisis or if it is but a harbinger of things to come — a decision motivated by personal philosophy.
“Stare decisis _ To abide by, or adhere to, decided cases.
“... Doctrine that, when court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the same.”2
In sanctioning the inventory search in the case at bar the majority relies entirely on one factual difference between this case and Gill: the fact that the police did not have possession of the keys to the locked trunk of Gill’s car but did have possession of the keys to appellant’s locked automobile trunk in this case. So the question for closer analysis is whether this fact is significant in Gill or other inventory search cases.
A proper discussion of the inventory search doctrine must begin with the case that gave it national scope, South Dakota v. Overman, 428 U.S. 364, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000, 96 S.Ct. 3092 (1976). Chief Justice Burger began the plurality opinion’s analysis by quoting the late Justice Black’s final pronouncement on the Fourth Amendment:
“ ‘[T]he Fourth Amendment ... prohibits only unreasonable searches and seizures. The relevant test is ... the reasonableness of the seizure under all the circumstances. The test of reasonableness cannot be fixed by per se rules; each case must be decided on its own facts.’ Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. [443] at 509-510 [91 S.Ct. 2022 at 2059-2060, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, (1971) (emphasis in opinion)].” Id., 428 U.S. at 372.
The opinion continued on with a discussion of the reasonableness of warrantless entry into automobiles (that were legitimately in police possession) and, germane to the case before the Court, how a “protective” search of such an automobile would be reasonable as long as it was conducted pursuant to standard police procedures so that the intrusion would be limited in scope to the extent necessary to carry o.ut the “caretaking” function. Id., 428 U.S. at 375, 96 S.Ct. at 3100. After noting the reasonableness of inventorying an unlocked glove compartment, {Id., 428 U.S. at 376, n. 10, 96 S.Ct. at 3100, n. 10) the Chief Justice pronounced that such “inventory” searches as this were not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Joining this four judge plurality was Justice Powell who wrote that although he joined their opinion he had some additional views, among them:
“Although the expectation of privacy in an automobile is significantly less than the traditional expectation of privacy associated with the home, [citations omitted], the unrestrained search of an automobile and its contents would constitute a serious intrusion upon the privacy of the individual in many circumstances.” Id., 428 U.S. at 380, 96 S.Ct. at 3102.
Noting that the search was limited to an inventory conducted strictly in accord with regulations of the police department, and noting in footnote that the trunk was not *40searched because it was locked, Justice Powell then went on to embrace routine inventory searches.
It can readily be seen then that the Supreme Court specifically did not sanction the inventory search of a locked automobile trunk in Opperman. Nor have they since. The Supreme Court has basically left the doctrine alone, resisting expansion in this area though clearly not hesitant to expand the power of police to conduct warrantless searches of cars and containers when they have probable cause to believe contraband is contained therein, United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); or to conduct warrantless searches of automobile passenger and glove compartments and any containers therein incident to a lawful arrest, New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981). In fact, in Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259, 102 S.Ct. 3079, 73 L.Ed.2d 750 (1982), the Court even pointed out that the automobile glove compartment that was validly inventoried was unlocked.
Thus it is clear that the Supreme Court to this day has decreed that: (1) there are limits to the scope of inventory searches of automobiles and (2) the “limits” are reached when the caretaking function is carried out. One simply finds no support from the Court for the proposition that a locked automobile trunk falls within these limits, whether or not the police have the keys.
Now let’s examine Gill, supra, in a very elementary fashion. We first notice that there is a panel opinion authored by Judge Roberts which is of value to explain his vote to concur in the result on rehearing en banc. Then there is a five judge majority opinion on rehearing authored by Judge Teague and joined by Presiding Judge Onion and Judges Odom, Tom Davis and Clinton and in which Judges Dally, W.C. Davis and McCormick concurred in the result, as did Judge Roberts.
After a discussion of the Opperman inventory search doctrine and a short soliloquy differentiating those searches from searches based on probable cause, the majority on rehearing pronounced the Texas and United States constitutional limits on automobile inventory searches.
“In short, the expression ‘inventory search,’ is not a talisman in whose presence the Fourth Amendment or Art. I, Sec. 9, of the Texas Constitution fades away and disappears, [citation omitted]
“... In [the] context [of an inventory search], a seizure of items found in an unlocked trunk of an automobile is permissible ....
“... Absent a showing of probable cause and exigent circumstances, a war-rantless search of a locked automobile trunk is per se illegal.” (emphasis supplied) Gill, supra at 318-319.
Now at this juncture the Gill majority gives an additional legal theory, unnecessary to the ultimate holding, that rests, as did the decision of the Gill panel opinion, on expectation of privacy in a locked trunk,
“Additionally, the State overlooks the differences between one’s expectation of privacy in a locked trunk of an automobile and the interior of an automobile
“The second reason [expectation of privacy above] is also sufficient to outweigh the purposes of an inventory search of a locked trunk. If the locked trunk cannot be entered without the use of substantial force, it is unlikely that the police would be charged with losing or appropriating items of personal property found therein, and the possibility of theft or vandalism by other persons of the locked trunk’s contents is sufficiently minimized that the prophylactic purposes of the inventory search are not sufficient to outweigh the owner’s expectation of privacy in the locked trunk.” (emphasis supplied) Id. at 319.
Thus the Majority in Gill held that the search of a locked trunk is not supportable for two separate and separable reasons.3
*41In the case at bar, the majority leaps on the second (and if you will — superfluous) reason given to support Gill’s holding.4 They point out that since the police had custody of appellant’s keys and, being concerned about a speculative potential future accusation of theft of property from the trunk, had to search the trunk to protect themselves against this possible claim because possession of the keys deprived them of the defense that since there was no way of entering the trunk except by force and there is no evidence of force, the accusation was groundless. In any event the main and independent reason supporting Gill’s holding, that the inventory search doctrine per se does not encompass a locked trunk, is conveniently ignored.
In Gill the majority characterized the State’s argument as nothing more than “advocating that a routine lawful arrest of a suspect in an automobile authorizes a search of every nook and cranny of that automobile.” Gill, supra at 320. Today the majority embraces that very argument and cloaks it in the imprimatur of law. Why? The reader need only truthfully answer the question: Are we that worried the police are going to have to pay lots of money because of false claims of property being stolen from locked automobile trunks in their care, or are we really just helping the police out here in their war against crime (regardless of the concepts of individual liberty involved)?5
For my part I cannot condone the majority’s holding and certainly cannot reconcile it with Gill.6
Contrary to what was specifically pronounced in Gill, the expression “inventory search” now is a talisman in whose presence a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Fourth Amendment and Art. I, Sec. 9, of the Texas Constitution all fade away and disappear.
“Law — our highest ideal and our basest nature. Don’t look too closely at the law. Do, and you’ll find the rationalized interpretations, the legal casuistry, the precedents of convenience.”7
I dissent.
CLINTON, J„ joins.

. See also Stephen v. State, 677 S.W.2d 42 (Tex.Cr.App. delivered this day).

. Black's Law Dictionary, 1261 (5th ed. 1979).

. Notwithstanding the apparent emphasis on forced entry in the Gill majority's second, additional reason, where a key is used by police to enter a locked car trunk there can be made a *41strong argument against use of the inventory search doctrine to justify this police conduct. The sounder approach was epitomized by the case of United States v. Wilson, 636 F.2d 1161 (8th Cir.1980), wherein the 8th Circuit said that a legitimate seizure of an automobile does not automatically justify an unlimited inventory search of the automobile, nor entry via key into a locked automobile trunk:
“Although an individual may not reasonably expect the same degree of privacy in a car trunk as in a home or office, an individual may justifiably have a greater expectation of privacy in the locked trunk than in the interi- or of his car.
******
“We hold, therefore, that the needs of the government in conducting an inventory search may be ordinarily accomplished without the serious intrusion into the locked trunk of an automobile." Id. at 1164.

.Stephen, referred to in footnote 1, involves an identical justification, but cites the split panel decision of Williams v. State, 621 S.W.2d 613, 615 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) no reh., as authority. Williams, aside from the fact that the concept of inventory of a locked automobile trunk was not discussed, was a case where the police thought the car in question was stolen and not the property of the defendant driver.

. Imagine the possibilities of combining today's majority holding with the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine, for instance.

. Nor would the Dallas Court of Appeals be able to. See Osban v. State, 648 S.W.2d 790, 790-791 (Civ.App. — Dallas 1983) pet. refd, wherein the court wrote: “In making the inventory search Officer Dean took the key from the ignition, opened the locked trunk, and there found .... We hold that the inventory search of the locked trunk was an unlawful search.” [citing Gill ] (emphasis in original).

. Muad’dib speaking to his royal concubine Cha-ni; F. Herbert, Dune Messiah, p. 212 (book two in the Dune Chronicles 1975).