# Crosby v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · November 12, 1987 · 750 S.W.2d 768

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9772878

## Case

- **Full name:** David VanCourtlandt CROSBY, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** November 12, 1987
- **Citations:** 750 S.W.2d 768; 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 705; 1987 WL 1387
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McCORMICK
- **Judges:** Campbell, Davis, Duncan, McCORMICK, Miller, Onion, Teague, White
- **Cited by:** 40 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/9772878

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that “the only indirectly acquired evidence that should be suppressed is that which was acquired by an exploitation of the unconstitutional intrusion”
- discussing Colonnade Catering, 397 U.S. at 72, 90 S.Ct. 774
- applying Wong Sun "fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine

## Opinion text

McCORMICK, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority today carves out an exception in the law which can apply only to big name entertainers. Such preferential treatment reduces the Fourth Amendment to nothing more than hollow words and demeans all our rights to equality under the law. Not only does the record before us fail to demonstrate any reasonable expectation of privacy in the defendant, the majority opinion destroys the entire spirit of the regulatory function of the Alcoholic Beverage Code. To such preferential and distorted application of the law, I most vigorously dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9772878. Public record. Not legal advice.