Court Opinion

ID: 9682003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:03:19.237117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:36.934701
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
WOODLEY, Judge.
We are unable to agree with appellant’s contention that the information communicated to the officer was insufficient to constitute probable cause or reasonable ground for the arrest without warrant and search of appellant’s car.
The officer testified before the court in the absence of the jury concerning such information in part as follows:
“* * * I was called and told that there was two boys in a truck that looked like a telephone truck that was leaving for Oklahoma with a load of whiskey, and that they were going out North Main and they were leaving at that time. As to whether my informant said anything about it having been stolen whiskey or that it was known to be stolen whiskey, he said it came out of a burglary. Based on that information, and having a description of the truck and having a description of the boys, I went out and intercepted the truck. This truck fit that description and the boys fit that description, and that is why I stopped the truck.”
“* * * I knew there was whiskey in the car from the time I got the telephone call.”
In Adams v. State, 137 Tex. Cr. R. 43, 128 S. W. 2d 41, cited by appellant, the officer’s belief was predicated alone upon the accused’s bad reputation and presence in the vicinity where the theft occurred.
In holding the search under such facts to be unauthorized, this court said:
“It is not the result of the search which determines the legality of the arrest and the search contemporaneous therewith, but the right to arrest and search under said Art. 325 must depend upon whether the party exercising such right had beforehand ‘reasonable grounds to suppose’ — or ‘probable cause to believe’ —that the property seized had been stolen and that the party arrested was the thief. In order to furnish such ‘reasonable grounds’ or ‘probable cause’ said party must have information or knowledge amounting to more than mere suspicion. It appears *10here that the officers had nothing more than suspicion, however well founded the result of the search proved it to have been.”
The officer here had “reasonable grounds to suppose” or “probable cause to believe” that the whiskey found in the truck was stolen, and that appellant was involved in the offense, as shown by his testimony above quoted.
We remain convinced that the evidence obtained as a result of such search was properly admitted.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.