Court Opinion

ID: 9772144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:08:42.481741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:42.345862
License: Public Domain

LEVY, Justice,
dissenting.
Because of my inability to agree with the majority’s disposition of appellant’s two grounds of error, alleging that the trial court erroneously overruled his motion to suppress evidence discovered during an illegal search of an automobile in which appellant was a passenger, I respectfully dissent.
Officer Denholm, who arrested appellant, sought to predicate his stopping the car on its “spinning its tires at a red light when it came off the light.” Apparently Denholm thought that “spinning tires” while at a stationary position constituted “an exhibition of speed or acceleration” in violation of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6701d, sec. 185(a) (Vernon 1977), an assumption facilely accepted by the majority. But Denholm did not testify that he had followed the vehicle for any distance to determine whether the driver would actually speed unlawfully or excessively. Spinning wheels at a red light does not, in itself, *776constitute an “exhibition of speed or acceleration” — it may be due merely to the presence of an oil slick or mud on the street. Neither did Denholm testify that he observed any other conduct before the stop that aroused his suspicion that either appellant or the vehicle’s driver was committing an offense.
Consequently, I have serious doubts that “spinning the tires” was within the ambit of the ordinance used as justification for the initial stop. If we permit this wheel-spinning phenomenon to establish itself as prima facie evidence of an exhibition of speed or acceleration, the citizen’s Fourth Amendment right of privacy will evaporate once he is in an automobile, always at the risk of depending upon an ad hoc determination of “good faith” on the part of an arresting officer.
Nor am I satisfied that appellant lacked standing as a passenger to challenge the legality of the search. For the State to accuse appellant of owning the cocaine, yet claim that he has no standing to protest its seizure, is a luminous example of ingenious casuistry that makes a shambles of the Fourth Amendment. Contrary to the majority, I conclude that appellant has “standing” — i.e., the right to relief in court — under Lewis v. State, 664 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), and Evers v. State, 576 S.W.2d 46 (Tex.Crim.App.1978), because the initial stop was an illegal detention and the search was achieved “by exploitation of the primary illegality.” See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 487-88, 83 S.Ct. 407, 417-18, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). It seems perhaps trite but necessary to observe that a search is good or bad ab initio, and is not validated by what it turns up. It does not change character from its success. What makes this “no standing” disposition of the appeal especially grievous is the refusal by the majority to consider the implications of vindicating the second search of the car, even though there was abundant time to obtain a warrant and a judge was presumably available at the station house when Officer Denholm was there with his prisoners. The constitutional requirement of probable cause must be determined by a “neutral and detached magistrate,” and not by “the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.” Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14, 68 S.Ct. 367, 369, 92 L.Ed.2d 436 (1948). Simple good faith on the part of the officer is not enough to justify intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights. In my judgment, there were no exigent circumstances apparent from the record that would have excused Denholm from his legal responsibility to obtain a warrant before searching the car.
I am satisfied that this search could not be sustained “without seriously diluting important safeguards that assure that the judgment of a disinterested judicial officer will interpose itself between the police and the citizenry.” Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S.Ct. 584, 591 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969).
I would sustain both grounds of error and remand the cause for a new trial.