holding as long as an officer with jurisdiction was present, search warrant was validly executed, although some officers were acting outside of their jurisdiction
How later courts described this case
- holding as long as an officer with jurisdiction was present, search warrant was validly executed, although some officers were acting outside of their jurisdiction
- and cases cited therein
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION DISSENTING TO DENIAL OF APPELLANTS’ MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS FOR REHEARING
CLINTON, Judge.
Because I am not persuaded that Long v. State, 532 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.Cr.App.1975) is apposite to the facts of this case 1 nor by the analysis that utilizes the oral stipulation that one of the officers “would testify” that on the day in question each accused “possessed more than four ounces of marihuana” 2 to brush aside the serious contentions concerning fruits of the stop made without probable cause of the pickup being driven by appellant Keen and the arrest of appellant Teixeira, including but not limited to the subsequent written statement of the latter that, in turn, led to more fruits, see Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1974) and Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 , 99 S.Ct. 2248 , 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979), I respectfully dissent.
. In Long v. State, supra, the school bus which was searched had been specifically described in the affidavit for search warrant, presumably— although the opinion does not say — from earlier observations made by surveilling officers that provided probable cause; from the bus the officers proceeded to extend their search of a two wheel trailer nearby which, though not described in their affidavit, had been moved about under the watchful eyes of one of them. The Long Court held “the search was not unreasonably broad in its scope” under “the facts and circumstances.” In the case at bar, however, the trunk compartment of two automobiles not described in an affidavit were forcibly broken into without any indication of prior observations that related them to transport of marihuana, or that they were “appurtenant” to the residence, as in Long .
. Such a stipulation is not a concession that what the officer would say is true; it is only some evidence which was before the trial court, as the judge himself stated, “subject to all the objections which have been made concerning the admissibility of any of the evidence” with respect to the search warrant and the confession of appellant Teixeira.