Araj v. State
| Decision Date | 21 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 61925,61925,2 |
| Citation | 592 S.W.2d 603 |
| Parties | Henry James ARAJ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John A. Woodard, Jr., Houston, on appeal only, for appellant; Allen C. Isbell, Houston, of counsel.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Calvin A. Hartmann and Matthew Leeper, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before DOUGLAS, PHILLIPS and CLINTON, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for possession of a controlled substance. The court assessed punishment at eight years and a $1500 fine, probated. Araj contends that cocaine found in an attache case in the rear of the passenger compartment of his car was discovered by means of a search in violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. We agree.
On February 23, 1978, Araj was stopped in his car by two uniformed officers who had received a request over the police radio to stop his car because it was reported to be carrying contraband. While following Araj's car for some distance from the place where the radio message had correctly stated it could be found, the patrolmen observed the car to be weaving in its lane and otherwise to be driven erratically. They took him into custody for driving while intoxicated. A search was then and there made of the car, Including the contents of the attache case.
Regardless of the probable cause the officers may have had to search Araj's automobile as a result either of his arrest or of the radio report the officers had received, the search of the attache case without warrant had been held illegal by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977).
In Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979), the Supreme Court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gill v. State
...between the search and seizure of open and unopened containers and their contents found in an automobile. See, however, Araj v. State, 592 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Nastu v. State, 589 S.W.2d 434 The concept of a true inventory search is not an exception to the warrant requirement of ei......
-
U.S. v. Ross
...F.Supp. 145 (C.D.Cal.1979) (dictum); In re B.K.C., 413 A.2d 894 (D.C.1980); Webb v. State, 373 So.2d 400 (Fla.App.1979); Araj v. State, 592 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Cf. United States v. White, 607 F.2d 203 (7th Cir. 1979) (exigent circumstances); United States v. Calaendrella, 605 F.2d......
-
People v. Maldonado
...v. Presler, 4th Cir., 610 F.2d 1206; Moran v. Morris, D.C., 478 F.Supp. 145; Webb v. State, 373 So.2d 400 (Fla.App.); Araj v. State, 592 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.Cr.App.); State v. Daniel, 589 P.2d 408 (Alaska, closed but unlatched briefcase), portfolio (United States v. Miller, 5th Cir., 608 F.2d 1......
-
Stewart v. State
...the Chadwick progeny to exclude briefcases, United States v. Presler, 610 F.2d 1206 (4th Cir. 1979), attache cases, Araj v. State, 592 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), guitar cases, United States v. Bella, 605 F.2d 160 (5th Cir. 1979), cardboard boxes closed and sealed with tape, United States......