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
MEYERS, Justice,
concurring.
Our precedents and those of the United States Supreme Court are replete with examples of constitutionally permissible police intrusions which do not depend for their reasonableness on a law enforcement motive. Firemen, police officers, and other public officials may enter buildings to save lives, prevent personal injury, or stop the destruction of private property. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392-93 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); Janicek v. State, 634 S.W.2d 687 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); Bray v. State, 597 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). They may take possession of private property left in public places if it poses a threat of injury or causes inconvenience to other citizens. They may inspect and catalog seized property to assure its safe-keeping and to protect themselves from claims of misconduct. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); Delgado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 718, 721-22 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). They may examine the premises of private businessmen to ensure compliance with public health and safety regulations. None of these governmental intrusions is made primarily for the purpose of enforcing penal statutes, yet all are considered to be reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes when undertaken in a reasonable manner. Clearly, the constitutional propriety of a search or seizure does not depend upon suspicion of a crime. The legitimate role of government in our society includes more than just the enforcement of its penal statutes.
I would emphasize that the right of the people to be free, except under extraordinary circumstances, from official intrusions into their personal lives and from official interruptions of their free movement in society is fundamental to our form of government and to our way of life. Under no circumstances should a search or seizure be considered *439 reasonable unless the reason for it is of such social importance that it outweighs the degree of individual embarrassment or inconvenience likely to result. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 536-37 , 87 S.Ct. 1727 , 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967); Bray, 597 S.W.2d at 769 . This is a balancing test. It is not a bright-line rule for each conceivable set of facts to which it applies. But it does set a standard to be observed by all agents of the government, including law enforcement officers and the courts responsible for overseeing the legality of their conduct.
With these comments, I join Judge Price’s concurring opinion.