Ranniger v. State

Decision Date12 November 1970
Docket NumberNo. 7182,7182
Citation460 S.W.2d 181
PartiesMichael Lee RANNIGER, a Delinquent Child, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

James McGrath, Beaumont, for appellant.

Brack Jones, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., W. C. Lindsey, Dist. Atty., Beaumont, for appellee.

PARKER, Chief Justice.

The appeal is from a judgment of the juvenile court of Jefferson County, wherein Michael Lee Ranniger was adjudged to be a delinquent child and committed to the Texas Youth Council. The order was suspended and he was released on probation to the custody and care of his parents under the supervision of the Jefferson County Juvenile Probation Department, 'subject to the further order of this Court.' The supervision was suspended pending the appeal of the cause.

From the agreed statement of facts, we learn that the appellant, then sixteen years of age, was charged with the possession of a dangerous drug, namely 'L.S.D.' upon the premises of Forrest Park High School. The entire thrust of the appeal is that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion to suppress evidence as to the finding of the drugs upon his person, it being asserted therein that such evidence was discovered 'in violation of the laws and Constitution of the 'United States of America and the State of Texas.' We quote the entire record of the 'Evidentiary Facts,' as such appears in the transcript, in the margin.* The doctrine of In loco parentis is not defined in the Statutes of the State of Texas. It is a common-law doctrine controlling the disposition of this case. The school principal, Hawthorne, stood in the place or stead of the parent. The principal was charged with the parent's duties, rights and responsibilities. When this student entered school on this occasion, parental authority was delegated and existed from the time Hawthorne discovered that Ranniger was not in a class as the rules provided and the discovery of the 37 L.S.D. tablets in the possession of Ranniger. We follow the majority opinion in Mercer v. State, 450 S.W.2d 715, 718 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin, 1970, error dism. as moot). Upon the basis of the summarized facts we are urged to follow the dissent of Justice Hughes in the Mercer case, supra. We are not persuaded by appellant's argument that we should file an opinion which adopts the minority view of Mercer.

Our record was not hammered out in an adversary proceeding through examination and cross-examination of the witnesses. Instead, we are presented with a barebones summary which fails to establish more than 'a bulge in the pocket' of appellant. We have no information as to its size, appearance, shape, location, or other suspicious circumstances (if any) surrounding the 'bulge.' Cf. Leal v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 222, 332 S.W.2d 729, 730 (1959).

Thus, our abbreviated record does not present the fact structure with sufficient clarity to Require us to meet the constitutional issue tendered by appellant. Under the circumstances, therefore, we prefer to adopt the rule mentioned by Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring in Chandler v. Judicial Council...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Young
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 20, 1975
    ...E.g., In re W., 29 Cal.App.3d 777, 105 Cal.Rptr. 775 (1973); Mercer v. State, 450 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.Civ.App.1970); Ranniger v. State, 460 S.W.2d 181 (Tex.Civ.App.1970); People v. Stewart, 63 Misc.2d 601, 313 N.Y.S.2d 253 (1970); In re Donaldson, 269 Cal.App.2d 509, 75 Cal.Rptr. 220 (1969). Se......
  • R.C.M. v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 29, 1983
    ...used by the boy's father, would not violate security of appellant under the Fourth Amendment." Id. In a subsequent similar case Ranniger v. State, 460 S.W.2d 181 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1970, no writ) the court followed the Mercer decision finding that a high school principal who compelled ......
  • Shoemaker v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 26, 1998
    ...of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., R.C.M. v. State, 660 S.W.2d 552 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Ranniger v. State, 460 S.W.2d 181 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1970, no writ); Mercer v. State, 450 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1970, writ dism'd w.o.j.). In T.L.O., however,......
  • Reasoner v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 13, 1971
    ...is ordered DISMISSED FOR MOOTNESS' The other authority is a copy of the opinion of the Beaumont Court of Civil Appeals in Ranniger v. The State of Texas, 460 S.W.2d 181, delivered on November 12, 1970. In addition to the dissenting opinion of Judge Hughes in the Mercer case, for an argument......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT