reasonableness of a search or seizure is a conclusion of law reviewable as such by appellate court
How later courts described this case
- reasonableness of a search or seizure is a conclusion of law reviewable as such by appellate court
- “ ‘Under the Fourth Amendment the determination of the reasonableness of a seizure is a conclusion of law ” (citations omitted)
- determination of DWI roadblock’s purpose is mixed question of law and fact
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by King v. State, 800 S.W.2d 528 (1990)
We are aware that several recent decisions of this Court have held that under Higbie v. State, 780 S.W.2d 228, 230 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), overruled on other grounds, King v. State, 800 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), we are to review the reasonableness of a search and seizure de novo.
The opinion
CAMPBELL, Judge,
concurring.
Believing that the only issue presented in this case is whether the roadblock in this case [my emphasis] is constitutional, I concur in the result reached by the majority. I cannot countenance deciding an issue that is not before this court, i.e., whether DWI roadblocks are unconstitutional per se under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The issue in this case is indistinguishable from that presented in Webb v. State, 739 S.W.2d 802 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), and should not be decided in any broader context.
WHITE and BERCHELMANN, JJ., join.