Williams v. State
Decision Date | 17 September 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 140-85,140-85 |
Citation | 726 S.W.2d 99 |
Parties | Anthony Cordell WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Buddy Stevens, Angleton, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., and William J. Delmore, III and Carol Cameron, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
The trial court found appellant guilty of unlawfully carrying a handgun and assessed 90 days in the county jail, probated, and a fine of $350.00. The First Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed in an unpublished opinion, holding that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress. Williams v. State, No. 01-84-0239-CR, delivered December 20, 1984. We granted appellant's petition for discretionary review to examine this holding.
The evidence at the hearing on the motion to suppress showed that Houston Police Officer Gildehaus was on patrol at about 3:30 p.m. on October 19th, 1983. Officer Gildehaus testified that he was driving west in the 2400 block of Anita, between Live Oak and Dowling. Gildehaus stated that Anita is a two-way street, running east and west. The officer observed appellant's pickup truck "parked on the wrong side of the street." The truck was parked on the south side of Anita, with its left (driver's side) wheels next to the curb. The truck was facing west, and Gildehaus was approaching the truck from behind. Gildehaus observed appellant sitting in the driver's seat of the truck. The driver's door was open. Gildehaus further testified as follows:
Under cross-examination and upon further questioning by the court, Gildehaus stated that he did not actually see the other person hand appellant anything, that he did not see their hands at all, that he was uncertain whether the other person, or appellant, did the passing, or whether "they were passing something back and forth". When asked "Did you actually see the hands or see the shoulder movement", Gildehaus responded, "Just the shoulder from the hand glide." Gildehaus conceded that he could not tell whether the two men were handing something to each other or shaking hands.
Gildehaus testified that the man standing by the truck "had been brought to my attention by an informant of mine." Gildehaus testified that "From the information they told me they had stated he was selling nickel bags of marijuana in that area." Gildehaus stated that within the two years he had been patrolling the area, he had participated in 10 or 15 arrests for narcotics, mainly marihuana, offenses at the corner of Anita and Dowling streets. Gildehaus testified that he had had occasion to observe narcotics transactions twenty-five to thirty times. Gildehaus stated that on the instant occasion, he "thought there was a narcotics deal going down."
Gildehaus stopped his patrol car behind the truck, got out, and walked toward the two men to investigate. Gildehaus testified further as follows:
"And when I--the guy standing outside of the vehicle, he at first observed me when he seen me, he walked away from the pickup truck and the other guy looked like he made some kind of downward movement in the pickup truck."
By the time Officer Gildehaus reached the driver's door of the truck, the "other guy" had moved off and was sitting on some steps nearby. Appellant was out of the truck, standing by the open door. Gildehaus noticed a brown paper bag on the floorboard on the driver's side. Gildehaus pulled the open sack toward him and looked inside it. He then reached into the sack and moved a shirt that was lying on another sack. At that point Gildehaus saw a gunbarrel protruding from the second, "inner" sack. Gildehaus testified as follows:
The record reflects that Gildehaus later "put the defendant into jail."
Gildehaus testified that the sack was within appellant's reach as he stood outside the truck. When asked why he "went into that truck," Gildehaus replied, Gildehaus was not asked and did not state why he arrested appellant.
Gildehaus seized two handguns from the sack. These were admitted into evidence over appellant's objection that the arrest was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution, and that the handguns were the fruit of the unlawful arrest.
The State argues that Gildehaus had reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) to make an investigative stop of appellant. In addition, the State argues, Gildehaus was justified under Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) in making a protective search for weapons in the passenger compartment of the truck.
We need not decide these issues. We find merit in the State's alternative argument that the search of the sack was a search incident to a lawful custodial arrest.
Article 6701d, V.A.C.S., provides, in pertinent part:
Violation of Art. 6701d, Sec. 96(a) is punishable as a misdemeanor. Art. 6701d, Sec. 143, supra.
Art. 6701d, Sec. 153 authorizes any peace officer to arrest without warrant any person found committing a violation of any provision of Article 6701d, supra.
Officer Gildehaus thus had probable cause to arrest appellant. That Gildehaus was investigating what he took to be a narcotics transaction is of no moment in this case. In Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 98 S.Ct. 1717, 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978) the Court wrote:
See also 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure, Sec. 1.2(g) (Supp.1986) ( )
Moreover, the fact that the search incident to the arrest preceded the formal custodial arrest by a few moments is of no consequence under Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980) ()
Accordingly, Officer Gildehaus's search of the sack was justified as a search incident to arrest under both Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), and New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981). 1
There was no error in denying appellant's motion to suppress. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Once again I must protest the majority's plucking an issue at random from the case before us rather than addressing the issue on which we granted review. The majority spends three pages setting out the facts relevant to appellant's ground for review, then abruptly concludes, "We need not decide these issues." Maj. op. at p. 100. If we need not decide these issues, we should not have granted review. We certainly did not grant appellant's petition for discretionary review in order to review "the State's alternative argument," as the majority decides in retrospect.
The State did not advance this "alternative argument" in the trial court. In the hearing on the motion to suppress, Houston Police Officer Gildehaus testified in passing that appellant's truck was parked on the wrong side of the street. That was not, however, what called his attention to appellant. Gildehaus testified that the man he saw talking to appellant had been described to him as a drug dealer, and the officer knew by personal experience that drug deals were frequent in the neighborhood. He had himself made ten or 15 arrests for such transactions in the two years he had been patrolling there. When asked why he parked and approached appellant Gildehaus testified:
"A Purpose, I went over there to see if--there seemed to me to be a narcotics deal going down. That's the reason I went over there.
Q You went over to check on a narcotics deal?
A That's correct."
The officer did not even hint at an intention to issue a ticket, let...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Crutcher
...State v. Moultrie, 316 S.C. 547, 451 S.E.2d 34, 37 (1994); State v. Nguyen, 563 N.W.2d 120, 125 n. 6 (S.D.1997); Williams v. State, 726 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); State v. Spurgeon, 904 P.2d 220, 227 (Utah App.1995); Parker v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 96, 496 S.E.2d 47, 52 (1998); Sta......
-
Wiede v. State
...or after the search, as long as sufficient probable cause exists for the officer to arrest before the search. Williams v. State, 726 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (citing Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 111, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980)). Courts permit warrantless searches ......
-
State v. Warren
...probable cause that a parking violation had occurred and could make a constitutional stop of the car."); Williams v. State , 726 S.W.2d 99, 100–01 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (en banc) (holding probable cause to arrest the defendant for a parking violation justified the warrantless search of the......
-
Angel v. State
...17, 1986, motion for reh'g pending) (not yet reported) (crack in tail light lens created probable cause to arrest); Williams v. State, 726 S.W.2d 99 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) (not yet reported) (parking on wrong side of street created probable cause to arrest). 12 Therefore, we hold that Officer To......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...incident to arrest, even though the search incident to the arrest preceded formal custodial arrest by a few moments. Williams v. State, 726 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). As part of a search incident to a valid arrest, a police officer is authorized to search the electronic contents of a......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...incident to arrest, even though the search incident to the arrest preceded formal custodial arrest by a few moments. Williams v. State, 726 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). As part of a search incident to a valid arrest, a police officer is authorized to search the electronic contents of a......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...incident to arrest, even though the search incident to the arrest preceded formal custodial arrest by a few moments. Williams v. State, 726 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). As part of a search incident to a valid arrest, a police officer is authorized to search the electronic contents of a......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...incident to arrest, even though the search incident to the arrest preceded formal custodial arrest by a few moments. Williams v. State, 726 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). As part of a search incident to a valid arrest, a police officer is authorized to search the electronic contents of a......