recognizing that the purpose of an inventory search is to protect the arrestee’s property while the arrestee is in police custody and to protect the arresting officers from harm and against claims over lost property
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that the purpose of an inventory search is to protect the arrestee’s property while the arrestee is in police custody and to protect the arresting officers from harm and against claims over lost property
- holding that article I, section 9 of the Texas *631 Constitution provides greater protection than its federal counterpart
- holding that article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution provides greater protection than its federal counterpart
- holding that police cannot rely upon inventory exception to conduct search of closed container
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by Michael D. Starnes v. State (2004)
Being a plurality opinion, Autran is not binding precedent, and we decline to follow
The opinion
*43 MALONEY, Judge,
concurring.
Believing that existing United States Supreme Court precedent makes clear that the Fourth Amendment was violated in this case, Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 , 110 S.Ct. 1632 , 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) and that we need not address the Texas Constitutional issue, I concur in the result.
MEYERS, J., joins this opinion.