determining that police officers’ actions did not violate Article I, Section 9 by asking whether, from the totality of the circumstances, after considering the public and private interests that are at stake, their action was an unreasonable seizure
How later courts described this case
- determining that police officers’ actions did not violate Article I, Section 9 by asking whether, from the totality of the circumstances, after considering the public and private interests that are at stake, their action was an unreasonable seizure
- holding that officer did not need a warrant when he received an ambulance assist call of a possible heart attack in a vehicle at a specific location, and police actually witnessed an individual slumped over a steering wheel at the specific location
- holding that article one, section nine of the Texas Constitution does not offer greater protection to the individual than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that it may offer less protection
- holding officers acted reasonably when they approached the vehicle in which the appellant was slumped unconscious on a public highway, awakened the appellant, and asked him to step out so 7 they could see if he was in need of assistance
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion and Judge Keller’s concurring opinion. I file this short concurrence to respond to a misconception at work in Judge Baird’s dissenting opinion. This dissenting opinion claims my dissenting opinion in Bauder v. State took the position that this Court is not “free to interpret our Constitution as providing less protection.” 1 This is incorrect. 2
. See Hulit v. State, 982 S.W.2d 431, 435 (Tex.Cr.App.1998) (Baird, J., dissenting) citing Bauder v. State, 921 S.W.2d 696, 706-07 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996) (McCormick, P.J., dissenting).
. See Bauder, 921 S.W.2d at 706 fn. 5 (McCormick, P.J., dissenting) (Texas' double jeopardy constitutional provision actually provides less protection than its federal counterpart), and at 703 (Maloney, J., concurring) (pointing out that my dissenting opinion in Bauder "interprets Article 1, Section 14 as being narrower than the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment”).