"[T]he purpose of taking an accused before a magistrate is for the magistrate to give him the warnings and discharge the duties required by Art. 15.17 of the Code. Such warnings are not prerequisite to the search of the person of the accused."
How later courts described this case
- "[T]he purpose of taking an accused before a magistrate is for the magistrate to give him the warnings and discharge the duties required by Art. 15.17 of the Code. Such warnings are not prerequisite to the search of the person of the accused."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MORRISON, Judge
(concurring).
In addition to the authorities cited in the majority opinion relating to the officer’s authority to search for what appeared to be a weapon in appellant’s pocket, we call attention to the following cases: United States v. Washington, 249 F.Supp. 40 (N.D.Ill.1965); People v. Thomas, 31 Ill.2d 212 , 201 N.E.2d 413 , cert. den. 380 U.S. 936 , 85 S.Ct. 948 , 13 L.Ed.2d 824 (1965); Brinegar v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 299 , 262 P.2d 464 (1953); State v. Scanlon, 84 N.J.Super. 427 , 202 A.2d 448 (1964); Elliott v. State, 173 Tenn. 203 , 116 S.W.2d 1009 (1938).
ONION, J., joins me in this concurrence.