Court Opinion

ID: 9777643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:17:49.759951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:57.910524
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ONION, Presiding Judge.
On rehearing appellant contends we missed the point he sought to make on original submission. He points out, and correctly so, that the capsule of heroin was recovered as a result of the second search of his person. He contends that our original opinion left the impression it was recovered when he was first apprehended, and that the second search was not reasonable because it was not made contemporaneously with the arrest; that it was at another time and place.
As the original opinion reflects, the appellant was one of several men who fled from abandoned houses upon the approach of the officers. After he was apprehended by Officer Teran he was handcuffed to a stop sign. A cursory search of his person revealed a pocket knife. Officer Teran then left to attempt to apprehend the other fleeing subjects. He and Officer Gonzales each returned with another subject. The appellant and these two were placed in a patrol car' and returned to the 500 block of Matamoros Street from which they had just fled. They were all given “Miranda” *180warnings. Both officers testified at the time the appellant, in their opinion, was under the influence of a narcotic. During the second search of appellant’s person at this point a capsule of what was later shown to be heroin fell from his clothing. Officer Teran was unable under the circumstances, to make more than a cursory search when the appellant was first apprehended, unless he had been willing to allow the other subjects to flee unapprehended. The second search was within a short distance and within a short time after the arrest and was substantially contemporaneous therewith. In our opinion the arrest, the limited search, the return of the appellant to the scene from which he fled, the warnings and subsequent search were all a part of one continuous happening. Cf. Taylor v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 421 S.W.2d 403, 408, cert. den. 393 U.S. 916, 89 S.Ct. 241, 21 L.Ed.2d 201.
We further observe that the officers made a bona fide arrest of the appellant under the provisions of Article 14.03, V.A.C.C.P.1 Thereupon they discovered he was under the influence of a narcotic drug, a felony. See Article 725c, V.A.P.C. Under such circumstances Article 14.01, V.A. C.C.P.2 would come into play authorizing appellant’s arrest for that offense and authorizing a search incident to that arrest. The subsequent search would not necessarily be tied to Article 14.03, supra, but rather to the violation later discovered. See Taylor v. State, supra, at p. 407; Gutierrez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 467; Denham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 428 S.W.2d 814. Thus another reason appears to justify the second or subsequent search.
Remaining convinced that this cause was properly disposed of on original submission, the appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

. Article 14.03, V.A.O.C.P., provides:
“Any peace officer may arrest, without warrant, persons found in suspicious places and under circumstances which reasonably show that such persons have been guilty of some felony or breach of the peace, or threaten, or are about to commit some offense against the laws.”

. Article 14.01, V.A.C.C.P., provides:
“(a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or an offense against the public peace.
“(b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.”