Court Opinion

ID: 9863166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:09:28.821639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:47:48.091596
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Judge,
concurring.
In its opinion, the court of appeals correctly notes that there is no administrative scheme permitting DWI roadblocks in this state. 791 S.W.2d at 576. We discover in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, - U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990), that the Michigan legislature empowered its counterpart to our Department of Public Safety to set up a statewide administrative scheme for sobriety checkpoints. Pursuant to that scheme, the director of the state police department appointed a Sobriety Checkpoint Advisory Committee which created guidelines setting forth procedures governing checkpoint operations, site selection, and publicity. The Supreme Court of course upheld the sobriety checkpoint as being consistent with the Fourth Amendment. If this is to be the case in Texas, then the court of appeals’ opinion is correct when it says “Texas has no such administrative scheme. This is a task best left to the legislature.” 791 S.W.2d at 576. Thus, the issue presented in this case may be resolved under Michigan v. Sitz without the necessity of addressing the question of whether the DWI roadblock violated Art. I, § 9.
With these comments, I join the majority opinion.
CLINTON and MALONEY, JJ„ join this opinion.
CAMPBELL, OVERSTREET and BENAVIDES, JJ., join this opinion and the majority opinion.