holding that “a kidnapping becomes a completed offense when a restraint is accomplished, and there is evidence that the actor intended to prevent liberation and 18 that he intended to do so by either secretion or the use or threatened use of deadly force” (emphases added)
How later courts described this case
- holding that “a kidnapping becomes a completed offense when a restraint is accomplished, and there is evidence that the actor intended to prevent liberation and 18 that he intended to do so by either secretion or the use or threatened use of deadly force” (emphases added)
- holding that A secretion . . . (is) part of the mens rea of kidnapping, not the actus reus @
- holding that once the term of a guest's occupancy of a room expires, the guest loses his exclusive right to privacy in the room and the manager of a hotel may consent to a search of the room and the seizure of items found in the room
- recognizing that pursuant to the emergency doctrine, the Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MALONEY, Judge,
concurring.
On original submission the Court rejected the State’s argument that the warrantless search was justified by exigent circumstances. On rehearing the Court upheld the search based upon exigent circumstances. I concur in the judgment of the Court on rehearing, but write separately to point out that the opinion on original submission failed to apply the appropriate legal standard. Both opinions recognize that the facts should be viewed under an objective standard when determining whether exigent circumstances justify a warrantless search. Op. on original submission at 482 (“Courts must use an objective standard of reasonableness in assessing the officers’ belief that such an emergency actually existed”); Op. on reh’g at 502 (objective standard of reasonableness is used in evaluating the police’s conduct). However, the opinion on original submission applied a subjective standard by looking to the actual views of the officers in the case. Brimage, 918 S.W.2d at 482-483 (opinion on original submission) (holding that record supports no exigency because police characterized search as evidentiary, decision to search was arrived at casually, police were not expecting to find alive or injured victim). When viewed under the appropriate objective standard I agree that the warrantless search was lawful as based upon exigent circumstances. I therefore concur in the judgment of the Court.