Court Opinion

ID: 9779316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:46:10.25338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:54:50.598248
License: Public Domain

Dodson v. State, 646 S.W.2d 177 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983) examines a stop of a motor vehicle and concludes:
 "We find that the record before us supports the trial court's finding that the officers stopped appellant's vehicle in a lawful manner and not upon a `mere pretext.' "
Id., at 185. That finding simply cannot be reasonably translated into what the majority opinion says about the detention of appellant in this cause, viz:
 "Even if Coulson had arrested appellant for trespassing as a pretext in order to determine if appellant was indeed the suspect he was looking for, this is allowable under our case law." (p. ___)1
That gratuitous statement pales in significance to the respects in which the majority utilizes the unfortunate case of Woodward v. State, 668 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.Cr.App. 1982). Rather than extending the two judge opinion in Woodward,2
the Court should reject the notion that "collective law enforcement personnel" may reasonably believe some factual aspect of the law of arrest. That theory releases an arresting officer from responsibility for his actions, and enables an appellate court to make its own de novo determination as to their justification — just as is done here.
I respectfully dissent to further emasculation of constitutional and statutory provisions intended and designed for reasonable protection of our citizenry.
1 Emphasis added by Judge Tom Davis. All other emphasis is supplied throughout by the writer of this opinion unless otherwise indicated.
2 The opinion written on rehearing by Judge W.C. Davis inWoodward which is apparently the one relied on by Judge Tom Davis here, was joined only by Judge Miller. Thus, it cannot be even characterized as a "plurality" opinion.