# Heitman v. State

> Court of Appeals of Texas · September 2, 1992 · 836 S.W.2d 840

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9664592

## Case

- **Full name:** William Randolph HEITMAN, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, State
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** September 2, 1992
- **Citations:** 836 S.W.2d 840; 1992 Tex. App. LEXIS 2433; 1992 WL 215506
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lattimore
- **Judges:** Hill, Lattimore, Day
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9664592

## Opinion text

LATTIMORE, Justice,
dissenting.
We are presently faced with the question of whether article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution authorizes police, apparently or at least arguably under the penumbra of an inventory search, to pry open, manipulate, or “jimmy” the lock on a briefcase and then use the contents of such as evidence against the operator of the vehicle involved. Tex. Const. art. I, § 9. Via the majority opinion, the court today has opted to further limit the privacy protections afforded all Texans under our State Constitution by interpreting article I, section 9 with the same interpretive constriction as the United States Supreme Court has used in delineating the privacy provision of the Fourth Amendment to the United States *844 Constitution. Id.; U.S. Const. amend. IV; see Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987). I decline to join in the majority’s retreat.
In approving this search, the majority has seized on the nondestructive nature of the entry as well as the fact that substantial force was not used in opening the lock; instead, it was merely “jimmied.” We can take judicial knowledge that locksmiths can open without destruction virtually any lock; hence, this decision essentially opens every lockable container to police scrutiny if their probe is under the guise of an inventory search.
Before authorities start “jimmying” locks there needs to be some evident need to do so other than to avoid being falsely accused of stealing the contents of the locked container. The likelihood of theft by others of the contents of a locked briefcase which is in police possession is minimal; therefore, the prophylactic purposes of the inventory search are not sufficient to outweigh Heitman’s expectation of privacy in the locked briefcase. Gill v. State, 625 S.W.2d 307, 319 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (opinion on reh’g). This expectation of privacy can be outweighed or overcome only by a reasonable expectation or by a showing of probable cause that the briefcase contains some dangerous instrumentality, such as a bomb or gun. Id. at 319—20.
In the present case, I believe that the Addison Police Department should have simply noted on the “impound” sheet that they had recovered “one, locked briefcase” along with any other appropriate description of such. The majority may be beguiled by the State’s use of the term “jimmied”; however, such use or misuse of the term does not diminish the significance of the police’s intrusive and, in my opinion, unconstitutional conduct. In light of the court’s unfortunate constriction of the privacy privileges afforded under article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9664592. Public record. Not legal advice.