Court Opinion

ID: 9774847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:35:29.053625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:16.020945
License: Public Domain

OPINION
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ROBERTS, Judge.
Appellant’s conviction for possession of obscene material with intent to distribute was affirmed by this Court. This writer concurred in the result and Onion, P. J., and Odom, J., dissented without opinion. We granted appellant’s motion for rehearing in order to examine more closely the search question involved in this case.
The film which was the subject of this prosecution was seized pursuant to a search warrant. The affidavit supporting the search warrant sets out most of the relevant facts and reads as follows:
“AFFIANT HAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SAID BELIEF BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS, TO-WIT: On this date during the past twelve hours I was notified by an informant whose identity must remain undisclosed for safety and security reasons, called me and stated that a white male in his sixty’s wearing a yellow shirt and yellow pants with grey receding hair, was in the downtown area trying to sell some obscene movies. I went downtown and found the subject getting into the above described pickup. I went back to my police unit and put out an attempt to locate on the truck. A uniform unit stopped the truck on Pt. Arthur Road for defective brake lights. Subject gave San Antonio address and was very nervous. He was brought to the police station and booked on the traffic charge. He had a notebook in his pocket and he tore some pages out and tried to eat them. The pages in the notebook discussed book stores, movie theatres and arcades and had some phone numbers. Checked the wanted file and found •jout he was wanted in Houston, Texas for Pornography violation. He had a ring of keys in his possession when he was arrested but he managed to get rid of them on the way to the station. He has a metal box in the back of his truck with 2 huge locks on it and he refused us permission to look in the box. While inventorying his truck, a roll of 16 mm film was in the box. While inventorying his truck, a roll of 16 mm film was found in a silver canister in the camper of his truck. I have reason to believe my informant because during the past two months, my informant has given me information on several occasions and on two of offenses reported, arrests were made and contraband was seized. I personally observed the above described subject in the same area as the Cinema X Theatre and The Action Theatre.”
The sufficiency of this affidavit under Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) was upheld in our per curiam opinion and is not under discussion here.1 Rather, it is the legality of appellant’s arrest and search on the brake lights offense which is the subject of this opinion.
The record reveals that the search of appellant’s person pursuant to that arrest produced notebook pages discussing book stores and movie theatres and a ring of keys hidden in appellant’s sock. Entry of the camper on the back of his pickup for the purpose of removing a dog revealed a roll of 16 mm film in a silver canister. As the affidavit indicates, these factors, coupled with the informant’s tip, were needed to establish probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. It is therefore necessary to establish the validity of the arrest and search on the brake lights charge in order to uphold the search warrant here.
*767It is well established that a thorough search of the person is justified if incident to a lawful custodial arrest. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); Wallace v. State, 467 S.W.2d 608 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). We need not decide if a custodial arrest was justified for this minor traffic violation, cf. Art. 6701d, Secs. 147, 148, and 153; Taylor v. State, 421 S.W.2d 403 (Tex.Cr.App.1968), or if a custodial arrest violated due process or equal protection of the laws in this instance, cf. Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973) (concurring opinion of Stewart, J.), or if the search following the arrest was reasonable in its scope, cf. Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964); Amador-Gonzalez v. United States, 391 F.2d 308 (5th Cir. 1968).
At the outset we are confronted with what appears to be a pretext arrest. A search incident to a pretext arrest is invalid. United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452, 467, 52 S.Ct. 420, 424, 76 L.Ed. 877 (1932); Amador-Gonzalez v. United States, supra; Pruitt v. State, 389 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.Cr.App.1965), overruled on other grounds in Onofre v. State, 474 S.W.2d 699 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Adair v. State, 427 S.W.2d 67 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) (dissenting opinions of Onion, J., and Morrison, J., and cases cited therein); Talbert v. State, 489 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Hall v. State, 488 S.W.2d 788 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).
The only evidence in the record that appellant’s brake lights were defective were the hearsay statements of Detective Wag-goner that appellant was stopped for that reason and booked on that charge. Wag-goner’s subsequent affidavit in support of the search warrant also made this allegation. However, the city attorney later dismissed charges on the traffic offense and a mechanic testified that the brake lights were not defective when he examined them the next day. The arresting officer, Detective Holt, did not testify, but he must have been aware of Waggoner’s “attempt to locate” radio bulletin prior to appellant’s arrest.2
The State has the burden of proving the legality of a warrantless arrest or search. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 455, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2032, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Washington v. State, 518 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). As in Farr v. State, 519 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), the State here failed to put on the one witness who could provide the testimony needed to discharge its burden. See also Paprskar v. State, 484 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Appellant has made out a pri-ma facie case of pretext arrest, and the only evidence refuting it is the hearsay testimony of Waggoner, which has no probative value at all. Lumpkin v. State, 524 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). The conclusion is inescapable that appellant was arrested for the sole purpose of obtaining evidence to corroborate Waggoner’s anonymous informant. “An arrest may not be used as a pretext to search for evidence.” United States v. Lefkowitz, supra 285 U.S. at 467 and, 52 S.Ct. at 424.
Since the facts necessary to support the warrant were discovered as the result of a pretext arrest, the warrant should not have issued and the obscene film supporting appellant’s conviction could not have been used. It follows that appellant’s conviction cannot stand.
The motion for rehearing is granted, the affirmance is set aside and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

. In that opinion, it was agreed that the informant’s tip plus the affiant’s cursory observations downtown did not constitute sufficient probable cause for appellant’s arrest.

. Such a bulletin afforded no probable cause for appellant’s arrest. Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971).