Court Opinion

ID: 9774848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:35:29.058741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:16.827807
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting).
I do not agree with footnote one in the majority opinion, and, eventually, this leads to a disagreement as to the disposition of this case. As I view the affidavit, the portions noted below were sufficient to au*768thorize a search without a warrant.1 The informant’s personal knowledge that the appellant was trying to sell obscene movies together with the showing of his reliability and the officer’s surveillance of appellant were sufficient probable cause to authorize the arrest and search of the vehicle.
I do not agree with that portion of the majority opinion which concludes that the information received by the officer after the arrest was needed to establish probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. I therefore do not conclude as does the majority that the facts necessary to uphold the warrant were discovered as the result of the arrest.
Thus, Amador-Gonzalez v. United States, 391 F.2d 308 (5th Cir. 1968) and Pruitt v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 389 S.W.2d 475, have no application to the case at bar because in neither case was there prior information that any law had been violated.2
I do not agree that this is a pretext arrest.
I respectfully dissent to the reversal of this conviction.

. “AFFIANT HAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SAID BELIEF BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS, TO-WIT: On this date during the past twelve hours I was notified by an informant whose identity must remain undisclosed for safety and security reasons, called me and stated that a white male in his sixty’s wearing a yellow shirt and yellow pants with gray receding hair, was in the downtown area trying to sell some obscene movies. I went downtown and found the subject getting into the above described pickup
I have reason to believe my informant because during the past two months, my informant has given me information on several occasions and on two of offenses reported, arrests were made and contraband was seized. I personally observed the above described subject in the same area as the Cinema X Theatre and The Action Theatre.”

. The purpose of the search in this case was clearly to discover the contraband, the possession of which is a crime. See Adair v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 427 S.W.2d 67, 68, Dissenting Opinion, Judge Onion, Footnote 1.