Palacio v. State, 27783

Decision Date09 November 1955
Docket NumberNo. 27783,27783
PartiesIgnacio PALACIO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Reynold M. Gardner, Amarillo, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the possession of marijuana; the punishment, 5 years.

Deputy Sheriffs Ball and Jackson testified that, while on patrol in the colored section of the city on the night in question, they observed an automobile driven by what appeared to be a white man or a Latin-American come to a halt at a bus stop and the driver beckon to a colored girl who was standing there; that as they drove the police car alongside him the appellant drove away. They stated that they interrogated the colored girl, learned that the appellant had asked her to go for a ride, and then overtook the appellant, arrested him, later searched his automobile, and found the marijuana which forms the basis of this prosecution.

As to their reason for arresting the appellant, we will quote from the testimony of the two officers.

Officer Ball:

'Q. Well, then why did you arrest him? A. Well, because as a general rule we don't permit any other race to be down there at that time of night for what appears to be for pleasure purposes.

* * *

* * *

'A. Well, first because he was there at that hour, and second because he was talking to this girl.

'Q. And you ran him down ann arrested him because he was Spanish, or a white man, and down there at that hour talking to this colored girl? A. We thought he was there for immoral purposes.

'Q. And that is the reason you arrested him? A. Yes sir.'

Officer Jackson:

'Q. But you ran him down and caught him because of the conversation you had with the girl? A. Yes sir.

* * *

* * *

'Q. Was that the only reason you arrested this defendant? A. No sir.

'Q. What other reason did you have for arresting this defendant? A. Because we knew him.'

Jackson further testified that he had heard a number of times that the appellant was engaged in the marijuana traffic.

Appellant questions the admissibility of the testimony concerning the fruits of the search on the grounds that the officers were without probable cause to authorize the arrest and were without a warrant for his arrest.

The appellant was doing nothing prior to his arrest to indicate that he was at that time engaged in the narcotic traffic, nor did the officers see him violate any law which would authorize them to arrest him without a warrant. The officers' testimony quoted above shows the reason they arrested the appellant, and such is not a valid reason under the law to authorize an arrest.

There is this additional testimony relating to probable cause which we do not deem sufficient but which we will here set forth. Officer Ball, when being questioned about the girl, answered: 'Well we asked her, since it appeared that the man was intoxicated * * *.' If the witness had reasons for saying it so appeared, he should have given them.

Bal further testified that after arresting the appellant they drove his automobile several blocks to a garage, where they searched it; that while the search was in progress the appellant 'made a break as though he wanted to run.'

Officer Jackson testified that he had heard a number of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Talbert v. State, s. 45132
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 17, 1973
    ...325, 298 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Tarwater v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 59, 267 S.W.2d 410 (Tex.Cr.App.1954); Palacio v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 194, 283 S.W.2d 765 (Tex.Cr.App.1955); Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253, 80 S.Ct. 1431, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 (1960). The arresting officer's testimony n......
  • Baray v. State, 30224
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 17, 1958
    ...or breach of the peace, or threaten, or are about to commit some offense against the laws.' Reliance is had upon Palacio v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 194, 283 S.W.2d 765, and Thomas v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 68, 288 S.W.2d 791. In neither case was there introduced in evidence an ordinance such as ......
  • Giacona v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 9, 1957
    ...evidence obtained as a result of that illegal arrest was not admissible. Thomas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 288 S.W.2d 791; Palacio v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 283 S.W.2d 765. We are not here concerned with the question as to whether probable cause existed to warrant the search of the automobile of P......
  • Thomas v. State, 27968
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 29, 1956
    ...the statute unconstitutional and negatory. It was because of the absence of that act that we reversed the convictions in Palacio v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 283 S.W.2d 765, and Harper v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 284 S.W.2d 362. It was because of the presence of such an act that we affirmed the convic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT