Licerio v. State, 42741
| Decision Date | 27 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 42741,42741 |
| Citation | 456 S.W.2d 96 |
| Parties | Raymond R. LICERIO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Arthur L. Lapham, Victoria, for appellant.
William C. Sparks, Dist. Atty., Victoria, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is the possession of heroin; the punishment, six (6) years. Trial was before the court without the intervention of a jury.
Officers entered the B & E Lounge 1 in the city of Victoria, and while there, they saw appellant bend over and place an object on the floor, and then move away from the table where he had been seated. This object was retrieved, and was shown to contain three capsules which proved to be heroin.
Appellant's sole complaint is that the officers were not armed with a search warrant. The officers received information that narcotics were to be at another tavern in the vicinity. After searching there, they came to the B & E Lounge and were in the process of searching when the incident which forms the basis of this prosecution occurred.
Admittedly, the table where appellant had been seated was in a public place. His reliance upon See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943; Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930, and my brother Onion's dissent in Clark v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 445 S.W.2d 516, 2 is clearly misplaced.
This was the public portion of a lounge which was open and doing business, McClelland v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 450, 55 S.W.2d 845, and the officer saw appellant place the contraband on the floor and then walk away, Dansby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 338.
No search warrant was required.
The judgment is affirmed.
1 Licensed under the Texas Liquor Control Act (Art. 666--1 et seq., Vernon's Ann.P.C.).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. State
...Tex.Cr.App., 414 S.W.2d 465; Jimenez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 421 S.W.2d 910; Dansby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 338; Licerio v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 96; 51 Tex.Jur.2d, Searches and Seizures, Sec. 29, pp. 673, We need not pass upon the question of whether appellant's action in......
-
Milligan v. State
...supports the State's contention that the "28" Club was open to the public, giving the officers the right to enter. Licerio v. State, 456 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hunnicutt v. State, 531 S.W.2d 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). The officer being in a place he was lawfully entitled to, on seeing the......
-
State v. Russo
...and plain view of the agents when they were taken off the floor from behind the bar by the customer and the defendant. Licerio v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 96. Objects falling within plain view are not the product of a search and are subject to seizure and may be introduced into eviden......
-
Hamilton v. State, 58458
...States v. Various Gambling Devices, 478 F.2d 1194 (5th Cir. 1973); Milligan v. State, 554 S.W.2d 192 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Licerio v. State, 456 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). Appellant had no reasonable expectation of privacy while sitting in the restaurant. See Green v. State, 566 S.W.2d 578 (......