Court Opinion

ID: 9673284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:09:37.311881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:21.313771
License: Public Domain

TAFT, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority opinion that the search of appellant’s truck and seizure of his cocaine can be justified as incident to a lawful *35arrest. I would uphold the search and seizure as pursuant to appellant’s consent obtained during a lawful temporary investigative detention, however. Because the facts support a lawful arrest, they are more than sufficient to support a lawful temporary investigative detention. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 147, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1923, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (officer need not have the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest before making temporary investigative detention).
During appellant’s detention, Officer Rios identified himself as a narcotics officer and asked appellant if he had any problem with the officers searching his truck. Appellant gave permission, although Rios could not recall appellant’s exact words. Despite appellant’s testimony that the officers were already searching his truck when Rios asked for permission and appellant refused to give it, the trial court was entitled to resolve the conflicting evidence against appellant. Appellant was arrested after the cocaine was found in his truck.
I believe the facts underlying the search and seizure in this case are more like a temporary investigative detention than an arrest. See Francis v. State, 896 S.W.2d 406, 408-12 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995), pet. dism’d, 922 S.W.2d 176 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). Therefore, I respectfully concur.