Court Opinion

ID: 9761488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:43:56.700368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:24.004073
License: Public Domain

TEAGUE, Judge,
dissenting.
Based on the affirmative facts that are in this record, I would hold that there was an illegal search and seizure of the items found in both the interior compartment and the trunk of the automobile.
What should be, but is not, stressed by the majority’s opinion is the fact that the Borton’s were burglarized sometime after 8:00 a.m., but the burglary was not reported until after 5:00 p.m. Thus, at the time of appellant’s arrest and the search and seizure of his person and his automobile, the police were unaware of the Borton burglary-
The majority’s opinion impliedly stands for the proposition that if law enforcement officials use the correct conclusory legal terms, such as “impoundment,” “inventory search,” or the like, then a search and seizure, ipso facto, becomes lawful. We should, however, always address the underlying reasons given for the use of any con-clusory term, and not simply adopt a law enforcement official’s use of a term or terms to uphold a search and seizure, as I fear has been done by the majority in this cause.1
However, although using the “magic” legal words “probable cause,” McMillon to this day has not told us how there was “probable cause” to believe “that stuff [in appellant’s automobile] to be stolen” at the time of appellant’s arrest. However, he did elucidate that the appellant’s “reputation was part of the probable cause.”
I do not quarrel with the majority that the police had the lawful right to detain *616appellant, as he was driving an automobile with license plates that did not match the true registration of the plates, i.e., he was driving a Ford automobile with plates registered to an Oldsmobile. See Art. 14.01(b), Y.A.C.C.P., and Art. 6675a-3e, Secs. 5 and 8, V.A.C.S.
However, officer McMillon’s eyes initially became focused on appellant on the day in question because, as he tells us: “The man is a well-known police character, thief, ex-convict.” Not having any justifiable reason to stop, detain or arrest appellant, McMillon called in to check the plates on the vehicle appellant was driving and, almost like saying the word “bingo,” he received information the automobile’s plates did not match, thus giving him cause to arrest and detain appellant and his automobile, until he could further investigate whether the automobile was stolen. He did investigate, but learned very shortly, in approximately 30 minutes after he had arrested appellant, that the automobile was not stolen. No charges were ever filed against appellant for violating Art. 6675a-3e supra.
I do not quarrel with the taking of appellant and his automobile into lawful custody, but to say that under these facts there was a lawful inventory and lawful mpoundment of the vehicle stretches the definition and meaning of those words. The simple fact of the matter is, as I read this record, there was no lawful inventory and no lawful im-poundment of the automobile, but merely a search and seizure for evidence of an unknown burglary.
I respectfully dissent.

. A good example of how a law enforcement official uses “magic” legal words is the following:
Q: So, you based your arrest upon his prior record and not upon something that happened at that time, is that correct.
A: No, sir, and you know that is incorrect.
Q: No, I don’t. I wasn’t there.
A: It’s quite incorrect.
Q: All right. Then, tell me why you arrested him?
A: Well, we arrested the man, you know, for violation of the State Motor Vehicle Registration Law.
Q: Did you file that case—
A: The charge was going to be Auto Theft.
Q: But there was no auto theft?
A: The investigation revealed the car was not stolen. The search, which revealed the property, and all of these things, the offense, you know — I believe I’ve done everything in the world reasonable and probable when I asked for the assistance of the other division, people who deal with that stuff on a more regular basis than I do. I certainly believe that there was every reason in the world to think there was probable cause for that stuff to be stolen, (emphasis added).