Imhoff v. State, 45883
| Decision Date | 28 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 45883,45883 |
| Parties | George Charles IMHOFF, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Kerry P. FitzGerald, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and Mike G. McCollum, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for robbery by assault; punishment was assessed at 99 years' confinement.
Appellant, in his first of three grounds of error, alleges that the trial court erroneously allowed a money bag to be introduced, since it was obtained as the result of an illegal arrest and search. Specifically he charges that the arresting officer did not possess sufficient probable cause to make the warrantless search of the interior of the automobile in which he was traveling.
The circumstances surrounding the arrest are as follows: the arresting officer testified that on the day in question, he observed a 1965 Ford automobile with Oklahoma license plates. There had been several armed robberies in the area recently and the description of the automobile involved was a blue 1965 or 1966 Ford, bearing Oklahoma license plates. The officer was driving behind the automobile and observed it make several random turns. He noticed appellant, who was seated in the front seat on the right side, make certain movements, 'apparently trying to conceal something under the front seat of the car.' The officer pulled alongside the vehicle, but was not able to make eye contact with its occupants. Finally, the car quickly moved to the left-hand side of a two-way street, meeting an oncoming automobile. Having pulled alongside the curb, and stopped on their own accord, appellant and his two companions immediately started to emerge. The arresting officer advised them to stay in the car. He then called for assistance. When other officers arrived, all three persons were ordered out of the vehicle and a search of the front seat was made. A potato chip bag containing money stolen in a recent bank robbery was found under the right front seat. At this time, the three occupants of the automobile were standing beside the car on the sidewalk. The arresting officer testified that he advised the cover officer to check under the front seat, that he didn't know what was there, but that he thought it 'might be guns.'
Appellant questions first the 'stopping' of the automobile and the alleged illegal search which followed. The record reflects that the automobile stopped on its own accord; the police officer did not pull the car over. Even assuming that he had, arguendo, the officer could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seals v. State, 04-81-00044-CR
...The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant's second application for continuance. Imhoff v. State, 494 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Pitcock v. State, 420 S.W.2d 719 The State correctly points out that appellant's motion was defective for failure to comp......
-
Duncantell v. State, 51749
...Appellant was scarcely in a position to harm anyone, even if he could have lunged back into the car for a weapon. Cf. Imhoff v. State, 494 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). The officers testified at trial that they were not in fear of their lives at the time the search was conducted. Beck v. St......
-
Grundstrom v. State
...officer was one in which the occupants could have easily reached and obtained a weapon. Satterwhite, 726 S.W.2d at 87; Imhoff v. State, 494 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Crim.App.1973). The arrest was lawful, and the officers were authorized to search the interior of the vehicle incident to such arrest. ......
-
Satterwhite v. State
...The area searched by the officer was one in which the occupants could have easily reached and obtained a weapon. Imhoff v. State, 494 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Lewis v. State, supra, Borner v. State, supra. Compare Wilson v. State, 511 S.W.2d 531 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Keah v. State, 508 S.......