King v. State
Decision Date | 14 November 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 1005-87,1005-87 |
Citation | 800 S.W.2d 528 |
Parties | Michael Ray KING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. Thomas Sullivan, Little Rock, Ark., Mike McCollum (on appeal only), Dallas, for appellant.
John Vance, Dist. Atty., and Pamela Sullivan Berdanier, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appeal is taken from a conviction for driving while intoxicated. After finding appellant guilty, the jury assessed his punishment at thirty days' confinement, probated for two years, a fine of $500, and suspension of appellant's driver's license for one year.
On direct appeal, appellant presented nine points of error. In the first, appellant argued that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence which was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. In the second, appellant also urged that the evidence was seized in violation of the Texas Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Art. 1, § 9, Tex. Const. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial after sustaining appellant's first point of error. King v. State, 733 S.W.2d 704 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1987).
In the instant case appellant was arrested for driving while intoxicated after being stopped at a roadblock on Storey Lane in the City of Dallas at 1:30 a.m. on April 12, 1985. The Court of Appeals decided that this stop was not solely for the purpose of checking driver's licenses. Instead, the Court of Appeals held, the roadblock was a subterfuge for catching drunken drivers. As such, the roadblock was unconstitutional. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. King, 733 S.W.2d at 707. The Court of Appeals based this ruling upon its earlier decision in Higbie v. State, 723 S.W.2d 802, at 804-805 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1987).
In the instant case, this Court granted the state's petition for discretionary review on two grounds. First, that the Court of Appeals erred by substituting its judgment as factfinder for the trial court when it held that the roadblock was not for the sole purpose of checking driver's licenses, but instead was a subterfuge for searching out drunken drivers. Second, that the Court of Appeals was wrong to conclude that sobriety checkpoints are unconstitutional; that appellant's stop was not violative of the Fourth Amendment.
Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down their decision in Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). In that case, the Court decided that the petitioner's stop at a sobriety checkpoint constituted a seizure within the context of the Fourth Amendment. The Court also held that these seizures were reasonable, and did not violate the Fourth Amendment proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court concluded:
Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. at ----, 110 S.Ct. at 2488.
We hold that Michigan v. Sitz overrules both this Court's plurality decision in Higbie v. State, 780...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gonzales v. State
...consideration in light of" Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). At 208. See also King v. State, 800 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). The Court of Appeals delivered its opinion on January 17, 1990. The State filed its petition for discretionary review on March......
-
Clewis v. State, 05-92-01950-CR
...539, 543 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); see also Higbie v. State, 780 S.W.2d 228, 231 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), overruled on other grounds, 800 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). The Jackson standard, in contrast, does not first require the factfinder to determine the weight and credibility of the evidence. ......
-
Murphy v. State, 12-90-00133-CR
...1001 (and cases there cited). Higbie v. State, 780 S.W.2d 228, 236-37 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), overruled on other grounds, King v. State, 800 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), noted that a third area of permissible suspicionless search and seizures is roadblocks for the purpose of checking drive......
-
Cerda v. State, 13-95-450-CR
...this Court have held that under Higbie v. State, 780 S.W.2d 228, 230 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), overruled on other grounds, King v. State, 800 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), we are to review the reasonableness of a search and seizure de novo. See State v. Guzman, 942 S.W.2d 41, 45 (Tex.App.......