Vargas v. State
Decision Date | 20 October 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 51385,51385 |
Parties | Juan VARGAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
George A. Scharmen, II, Huntsville, for appellant.
Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Keith W. Burris and Susan Spruce, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DALLY, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of possession of heroin; the punishment, which is enhanced by proof of two prior felony convictions, is imprisonment for life.
The appellant asserts the trial court erred in admitting evidence which it is alleged was unlawfully obtained; the appellant also asserts that he was unlawfully arrested.
The record reflects that on September 1, 1974, Officer Frank Garcia responded to a call regarding a 'sick party' at a fire station; when he arrived, the appellant was unconscious in an ambulance. Officer Garcia looked for identification and found in appellant's back pocket a card that appeared to be a subpoena from Municipal Court that bore appellant's name; after finding the identification, the officer left; the Emergency Medical Service then transported appellant to the Bexar County Hospital emergency room.
In the emergency room, appellant was prepared for examination by Marlene Kuechele, a registered nurse; she had been advised that the appellant had been tentatively identified as Juan Vargas. Appellant appeared to be conscious, but he was lethargic, sleepy, and had abscesses in his arm. Kuechele asked the appellant if he had taken an overdose of heroin and he failed to respond; the second time she asked, he admitted that he had overdosed. As required by hospital policy, Kuechele removed appellant's clothes to inventory and store his property; she stated the purpose of the policy was to prepare patients for examination and for protection of the hospital and the patient's property. She felt a heavy bulge in appellant's pocket, reached inside and found a .22 caliber pistol. Pursuant to hospital policy she called for a security officer and told the officers who responded, Tony Valdez and Rita Barriere, that she had found a gun in appellant's trousers and that he had admitted taking an overdose of heroin. After calling the city police, Officer Barriere, a deputy sheriff with the Bexar County Hospital District, looked in appellant's wallet and confirmed that his name was Juan Vargas.
Officer Garcia, the same officer who had earlier seen appellant in the ambulance, responded to the call from the hospital security officers. Upon his arrival at the hospital Officer Garcia was informed that a gun had been found in appellant's pants. He took possession of the gun and had the nurse initial it. Officer Barriere and Officer Garcia then searched the rest of appellant's clothes, finding therein three or five live rounds of ammunition and a yellow balloon containing a substance later identified as the heroin that was admitted in evidence.
There has been no question raised regarding the search for identification conducted in the ambulance upon the unconscious appellant by Officer Garcia. If the heroin-filled balloon had been discovered during the warrantless search of the appellant in the ambulance, the heroin would have been admissible in evidence because a search would have been justified under the 'emergency' or 'exigent circumstances' doctrine. A search of a person found in an unconscious condition is reasonable and necessary for the purposes of identification and possible discovery of a medical history carried on the person. See Perez v. State, 514 S.W.2d 748 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Crawford v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 358, 292 S.W.2d 123 (1956).
While the initial examination of appellant's clothing, which produced the pistol, was conducted by the nurse, the heroin was discovered by the security guards and Officer Garcia. If, upon discovery of the gun, instead of calling the security officer, the nurse had continued her cataloging of appellant's effects, and subsequently found the heroin-filled balloon, the heroin would have been admissible in evidence. A 'search' in which the exclusionary rule may apply is one in which there is a quest for, a looking for, or a seeking out of that which offends against the law by law enforcement personnel or their agents. See Long v. State, 532 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Turner v. State, 499 S.W.2d 182 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Appellant was not undressed by, or at the direction of, a police officer. The purpose in the nurse's undressing appellant and cataloging his effects was not to discover contraband or other illicit property or to obtain evidence to be used against him in criminal action. Therefore, had the nurse discovered the heroin in appellant's clothes, her purely private action would not have constituted a 'search.' See State v. Wooten, 18 N.C.App. 269, 196 S.E.2d 603 (1973); State v. Courtney, 25 N.C.App. 351, 213 S.W.2d 403 (1975).
The United States Supreme Court has approved the practice of securing and inventorying the contents of automobiles in police custody and control, holding that it is not violative of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973); South Dakota v. Opperman, --- U.S. ---, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 100 (1976). The United States Supreme Court has stated that these 'inventory searches' developed in response to three distinct needs: (1) the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody, (2) the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, and (3) the protection of the police from potential danger. South Dakota v. Opperman, supra. We find the reasoning and policies of these cases to be fully applicable to a case such as the one before us.
The nurse removed and examined appellant's clothing pursuant to hospital policy which provided that patients awaiting treatment in the emergency room were to be completely disrobed and given a hospital gown to wear. Further, it was the hospital's policy to inventory and place under lock and key all of a patient's personal effects, both to protect the patient's property and to protect the hospital from unwarranted claims stemming from lost or stolen property. The discovery of a pistol in appellant's pants indicated that the appellant was possibly a dangerous individual and brought into focus the need for the safety and protection of the other patients and the employees of the hospital. The nurse called the security guards who, in turn, called the police. After Officer Garcia arrived and had been given the pistol found in appellant's pants, he and the security guards continued the inventory of appellant's personal effects initiated by the nurse.
The appellant contends that the continued inventory of his possession conducted by security officers Valdez and Barriere and Officer Garcia resulted solely from a suspicion on the part of the officers that the fruits of another crime would be found. Attention is directed to the following exchange:
'(DEFENSE COUNSEL):
'(OFFICER BARRIERE):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Comeaux, 318-90
...256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048 (1921); U.S. v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984); Vargas v. State, 542 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) cert. denied 429 U.S. 1109, 97 S.Ct. 1144, 51 L.Ed.2d 562 (1977). However, "[a]lthough the Fourth Amendment does not appl......
-
Becknell v. State
...Perez v. State, 514 S.W.2d 748 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Tijerina v. State, 578 S.W.2d 415 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Vargas v. State, 542 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); In re Scott K., 24 Cal.3d 395, 155 Cal.Rptr. 671, 595 P.2d 105 (1979); People v. Nunn, 55 Ill.2d 344, 304 N.E.2d 81 I part company with t......
-
State v. Comeaux
...to purely private searches. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1656, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984); Vargas v. State, 542 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Hayes v. State, 634 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Tex.App.1982, no pet.). In cases where the courts determined whether there was s......
-
Weaver v. State, 01-86-0094-CR
...the circumstances, the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply. See Vargas v. State, 542 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Tex.Crim.App.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1109, 97 S.Ct. 1144, 51 L.Ed.2d 562 (1977); Hayes v. State, 634 S.W.2d at 363. Appellant has not ......
-
Search and Seizure: Persons
...for, a looking for, or a seeking out of that which offends against the law by law enforcement personnel or their agents. Vargas v. State, 542 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). A stop and frisk is a search and seizure. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Davis v......
-
Search and Seizure: Persons
...for, a looking for, or a seeking out of that which offends against the law by law enforcement personnel or their agents. Vargas v. State, 542 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). A stop and frisk is a search and seizure. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Davis v......
-
Search and Seizure: Persons
...for, a looking for, or a seeking out of that which offends against the law by law enforcement personnel or their agents. Vargas v. State, 542 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). A stop and frisk is a search and seizure. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Davis v......
-
Search and Seizure: Persons
...for, a looking for, or a seeking out of that which offends against the law by law enforcement personnel or their agents. Vargas v. State, 542 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). A stop and frisk is a search and seizure. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Davis v......