Court Opinion

ID: 9682750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:16:15.549882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:41.222104
License: Public Domain

VOLLERS, Judge,
dissenting.
It appears that the majority is placing an interpretation upon the offense of public intoxication that is simply not warranted. Section 42.08, Y.A.P.C. provides:
“(a) an individual commits an offense if he appears in a public place under the influence of alcohol or any other substance, to the degree that he may endanger himself or another.”
It appears that the majority is qualifying this to mean that he must not only be intoxicated to the degree required, but that it be under circumstances wherein he is likely to endanger himself or another. This is simply not provided in the statute. The statute merely requires the intoxication to be to the degree that he may endanger himself or another.
The evidence set forth in the majority opinion clearly shows that appellant was very intoxicated and this evidence is certainly sufficient to show probable cause for the officer to arrest him for the offense of public intoxication. Since there was probable cause to arrest for a violation of Section 42.08, V.A.P.C. the officer properly took appellant into custody and the following search of the person was a lawful search incident to a lawful arrest. The contraband which was introduced in evidence in this case was lawfully seized and properly introduced in evidence. This conviction should be affirmed.
I dissent.
*689Before the court en banc.