Court Opinion

ID: 9772756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:29:03.146395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:43:12.162026
License: Public Domain

DAVIDSON, Judge,
dissenting.
I have not changed my views from those set out in my concurring opinion in Helton v. State, 164 Texas Cr. Rep. 488, 300 S.W. 2d 87, to the effect that a warrant to search a private residence must be based upon the affidavit of two credible persons.
*371The sole and only basis for requiring a search warrant to search one’s private residence is to furnish a procedure by and through which the search is made lawful and therefore not within the condemnation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches.
It is the place, property, and residence that are to be searched which the Constitution protects. It is not the article or property that is searched for and sought to be found by the search that the Constitution protects from unreasonable search. Yet that is exactly what my brethren hold when they say that a search warrant to search one’s private residence for liquor must be based, in obedience to Art. 666-20, Vernon’s P.C., upon the affidavit of two credible persons but that in order to search the same private residence for any other property the search warrant could be issued upon the affidavit of but one credible person.
Not only does such construction destroy and completely nullify the constitutional guarantee against the search of one’s residence but it also destroys the statute (Art. 666-20, Vernon’s P.C.) which requires the affidavit of two credible persons for a search warrant to issue to search for liquor.
As pointed out in the Helton case, supra, the search warrant, there, authorized the search of the private residence for stolen property. The right to search for marijuana was nowhere mentioned therein. In executing the search warrant and searching the private residence thereunder, the officers found no stolen property but, instead, found some marijuana — which was the basis of the prosecution and conviction of Helton.
If a search of a private residence for stolen property issued upon the affidavit of one person authorizes the search for, the finding, and the introduction in evidence of marijuana found in the residence, then such warrant would authorize the search for, the finding, and the introduction in evidence of intoxicating liquor found in the private residence at that time.
Thus, the statutory requirement that a warrant to search a private residence for intoxicating liquor must be based upon the affidavit of two credible persons is and can be completely nullified.
But there is a far more significant reason which supports my contention that all search warrants to search a private residence must now be based upon the affidavit of two credible per*372sons. There is no place in our jurisprudence for discrimination between or conflicts in the statutes of this state. Here, the subject being dealt with is the search of one’s private residence. By one set of statutes the search of one’s private residence is authorized upon the affidavit of one credible person, while by another statute the search of that same private residence is authorized only upon the affidavit of two credible persons. Thus there is shown to be a direct conflict between the two statutes, with a different procedure prescribed as a condition precedent to the attainment of the same end.
Where two statutes are in direct conflict as to the same subject, neither statute is valid and both must fall.
On the other hand, if the two statutes can be reconciled then the construction which preserves the statutes rather than that which destroys should be adopted.
To say, here, that a private residence may be lawfully searched upon the affidavit of one person destroys that statute which requires that such a search is authorized only upon the affidavit of two persons.
The two stautes are in direct conflict upon the same subject, that subject being the lawfulness of a search of one’s private residence.
On the other hand, to require the affidavit of two persons to search a private residence preserves both statutes and the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.
The search warrant in this case was invalid and did not authorize the search of the private residence.
I respectfully dissent.