Court Opinion

ID: 9778255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:57:04.226729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:05.932751
License: Public Domain

GRANT, Justice,
dissenting.
In the present case, the majority determined that failing to wear a seat belt and having an expired inspection sticker was a sufficient basis for a total search of all of the appellant’s personal belongings, including those contained in the trunk of his car. This *614is another precedent for a complete search of any citizen on the basis of a minor traffic offense and another step toward rendering the rights of the people under the Fourth Amendment a nullity.
I commented extensively on the inventory search in the dissenting opinion in Hatcher v. State, 916 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1996, pet. filed). Unlike Hatcher, in the present case there was at least an inventory made. The officer testified that he made such an inventory in accordance with the written policy regarding inventory searches of the Department of Public Safety. No written policy was introduced into evidence. The policy enunciated by the officer’s testimony offered no limitations on the search that would protect a citizen from an unreasonable search. Instead, it proclaimed a seareh-everywhere, open-everything, seareh-for-everything, without-probable-cause policy. This eliminates probable cause, search warrants, and constitutional protection for drivers of automobiles, as long as some traffic violation can be alleged.
I respectfully dissent.