Court Opinion

ID: 9678102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:11:44.222877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:01.899872
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
In his motion for rehearing, appellant notes that petition for review has been granted by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Hurwitz v. State, 673 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.App.—Austin 1984, pet’n granted) and, therefore, should not be cited by this Court in support of the application of the “open fields doctrine.” We disagree. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted limited review concerning grounds other than those for which this Court has cited the Hurwitz case.
Appellant also contends that Article 1, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution affords “open fields” a greater protection than the United States Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, in part, that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Article 1, section 9 of the Texas Constitution provides, in part, that “no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.”
We hold that the language in Article 1, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution is substantially similar to, and not more restrictive than, the language of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Therefore, the Texas Constitution does not prohibit the application of the “open field doctrine” as described in Oliver v. United States, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984) and Goehring v. State, 627 S.W.2d 159 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).
The motion for rehearing is overruled.