Drago v. State
| Decision Date | 13 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53685,53685 |
| Citation | 553 S.W.2d 375 |
| Parties | Robert DRAGO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Frank Maloney and Philip A. Nelson, Jr., Austin, for appellant.
Robert O. Smith, Dist. Atty. and Richard E. Banks, Asst. Dist. Atty., Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal of a conviction of the offense of possession of more than four ounces of marihuana. Trial was by the court with punishment being assessed at a probated term of five years' confinement.
At around midnight on March 2, 1975, Sgt. Muennink and Officer Alexander of the Austin Police Department saw the car in which appellant was riding traveling east on Seventh Street near the intersection of that street and Interstate Highway 35 in Austin. Seventh Street at that point is one way eastbound and consists of four lanes divided down the center by a small esplanade. The car was in the lane immediately to the south of the esplanade and after it passed under the expressway overpass it turned left from that lane northward onto the expressway's east frontage road. There were traffic signs over each of the four lanes of Seventh Street on the west side of the overpass highway. The signs over the two lanes north of the esplanade each portrayed a left turning arrow and the word "only". The signs over the two lanes south of the esplanade, including the lane from which the car made its left turn, each portrayed an arrow pointing straight ahead. After the car completed its left turn, the officers pursued it in their own car and pulled it over. John Griffin, the driver of the car, got out and met Sgt. Muennink near the front of the police car, where Sgt. Muennink started writing Mr. Griffin a warning ticket for having made a turn from the wrong lane. Officer Alexander approached the passenger side of the stopped car to tell appellant the reason for the stop. While Officer Alexander was speaking to appellant through the open car window, he smelled the odor of marihuana and saw appellant place his hands down close to the floor of the car. Officer Alexander searched the car and found a large plastic bag of marihuana, which he seized. The marihuana was found to weigh more than nine pounds. At trial, evidence of the seizure of the marihuana was admitted over appellant's objection that it was illegally obtained.
Appellant's first ground of error asserts error in the overruling of his motion to suppress the alleged marihuana seized as the result of a search of appellant's automobile upon the asserted ground that the signs in question were so uncertain as to render their inclusion within the penal prohibition of Sec. 65(c) of Art. 6701d, V.A.T.S., unconstitutional. Since said Sec. 65(c) makes unlawful the turning of a vehicle at an intersection other than as directed and required by an official traffic control device and authorizes the State Highway Commission and local authorities to place such devices within or adjacent to intersections, such devices become an integral part of said penal statute, and as such must meet the certainty requirements of due process the same as any other essential part of a criminal statute. Signs are within the definition of the term "traffic-control device". Sec. 18(a), Art....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meeks v. State
...was discovered. See Duff v. State, 546 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Tardiff v. State, 548 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Drago v. State, 553 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). If the detention was unjustified, then the odor of marihuana would not have been detected; thus, the validity of the sea......
-
Carroll v. State
...of police activity which could not have been reasonably believed to be lawful by the officer committing the same. Drago v. State, 553 S.W.2d 375, 378 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Owens v. State, 861 S.W.2d 419, 420 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1993, no pet.); Reed, 818 S.W.2d at 571. The purposes of deterrenc......
-
Angel v. State
...facts occur in his presence or within his view for him to reasonably conclude that an offense is being committed. Drago v. State, 553 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex.Cr.App.1977) (citing Soileau v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 544, 244 S.W.2d 224, 225 (1951), aff'd. on reh'g, 244 S.W.2d 225).12 The State argu......
-
Leming v. State
...as is the case with any investigative stop, “proof of the actual commission of the offense is not a requisite.” Drago v. State, 553 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) ; Valencia v. State, 820 S.W.2d 397, 400 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref'd) ; Joubert v. State, 129 S.W.3d 68......
-
Arrests
...deter police activity that could not have been reasonably believed to be lawful by the officers committing the conduct. Drago v. State, 553 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Not every violation of a “law” of Texas, however, will invoke the exclusionary rule. Roy v. State, 608 S.W.2d 645 (T......
-
Arrests
...deter police activity that could not have been reasonably believed to be lawful by the officers committing the conduct. Drago v. State, 553 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Not every violation of a “law” of Texas, however, will invoke the exclusionary rule. Roy v. State, 608 S.W.2d 645 (T......
-
Arrests
...deter police activity that could not have been reasonably believed to be lawful by the officers committing the conduct. Drago v. State, 553 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Not every violation of a “law” of Texas, however, will invoke the exclusionary rule. Roy v. State, 608 S.W.2d 645 (T......
-
Arrests
...deter police activity that could not have been reasonably believed to be lawful by the officers committing the conduct. Drago v. State, 553 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Not every violation of a “law” of Texas, however, will invoke the exclusionary rule. Roy v. State, 608 S.W.2d 645 (T......