Court Opinion

ID: 9772064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:06:35.816865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:41.943714
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority on rehearing is entirely too niggardly in its treatment of this appeal. Appellant’s grounds of error and his arguments supporting those grounds fairly raise the issue of the lawfulness of the search conducted by Officer Cook. Cook by his own testimony acknowledged that he sought consent only to open the trunk and look inside. I fail to see how the testimony of appellant quoted by the majority can, even by the stretch of a fertile imagination, constitute evidence that appellant consented to more than Cook requested of him.
*226The search was unlawful-the worst sort of pretext. The issues raised by the search are important; in fact, of constitutional dimension. Why duck the issues presented by adopting an overly technical construction of appellant’s grounds of error?
A majority of the Court is in error, but it is not the majority on original submission.
I dissent.