Court Opinion

ID: 9767005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:05:53.173976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:27.653711
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Judge,
concurring.
Addressing the concurring opinions of Judge Clinton and Judge Teague, I find the “Weber rule” unsatisfactory precisely be*575cause it is rigorously structured. Predictability aside, I see no advantage to requiring a lawyer to be “actually present at a police station” in every instance. Given the unstructured balancing test of the majority opinion, a suspect’s right to remain silent and his right to counsel might compel the police to inform him that “his” attorney is trying to contact him from another state by telephone or is trying to contact him at a different police substation [applicable where the police move the suspect from place to place in order to thwart attempts by outsiders to locate him. See Foster v. State, 677 S.W.2d 507 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) ], etc.
Rigid rules have the advantage of predictability but also carry the disadvantage of being subject to manipulation. I prefer a test broad enough to grant relief not only in the instant case, but in all other cases equally compelling, regardless of the physical circumstances. Thus, I join the opinion of the majority.