Court Opinion

ID: 9863333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:24:47.94366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:41:19.690058
License: Public Domain

TEAGUE, Judge,
dissenting.
In my view, the majority opinion implicitly overrules the principles of law that this Court stated in Gill v. State, 625 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) (On State’s Motion for Rehearing), regarding an “inventory search” of a locked automobile trunk.
This Court in Gill v. State, supra, expressly held, inter alia, that “Absent a showing of probable cause and exigent circumstances, a warrantless search of a locked automobile trunk is per se illegal.” (319).
This Court also expressly held in Gill v. State, supra, that “the expression, ‘inventory search,’ is not a talisman in whose presence the Fourth Amendment or Art. 1, Section 9, of the Texas Constitution fades away and disappears.” (318-319), After re-reading the majority opinion, it is apparent to me that its author has implicitly reworded the expression. By the majority opinion, it now reads, “the expression, ‘inventory search,’ is a talisman in whose presence the provisions of the respective Constitutions governing warrantless searches and seizures without probable cause fade away.”
From the facts stated in the majority opinion, it is obvious to me that when the police officer unlocked the locked automobile trunk, he was then in the act of conducting a warrantless search. The facts stated in the majority opinion do not reflect that he acted with probable cause. Such a search used to be unlawful action by the police, which caused any seized evidence to be excluded at trial.
I also dissent to the majority opinion’s disposition of appellant’s third ground of error, which relates to jury argument by the prosecuting attorney. Unless one suffers from myopia, it should be obvious to anyone that the prosecuting attorney was not arguing that appellant deserved a long sentence, but, instead, was expressing his opinion why our laws governing how long a prisoner will serve are ineffective, which, of course, used to be improper jury argument.
For all of the above reasons, I respectfully dissent.