# Heitman v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 26, 1991 · 815 S.W.2d 681

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777858

## Case

- **Full name:** William Randolph HEITMAN, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 26, 1991
- **Citations:** 815 S.W.2d 681; 60 U.S.L.W. 2074; 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 160; 1991 WL 111761
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McCORMICK
- **Judges:** Miller, White
- **Cited by:** 903 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/9777858

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that states are free to reject federal holdings as long as state action does not fall below the minimum standards provided by federal constitutional protections and also may impose greater restrictions than those the Supreme Court holds to be necessary under federa…
- explaining that under a “new federalism” approach to constitutional interpretation “a state is free as a matter of its own law to impose greater restrictions on police activity than those the Supreme Court holds to be necessary upon federal constitutional standards”
- holding that Texas courts interpreting the search and seizure protections in the Texas Constitution are not bound to “blindly follow the Supreme Court’s decisions” interpreting the parallel guarantee in the Fourth Amendment
- holding that failure to ..j j -' -•- -i •- -j -j independently construe state constitutional provisions places decision in hands of Supreme Court of the United States which is not responsible to electorate
- concluding that "this Court, when analyzing and interpreting Art. I, § 9, Tex. Const., will not be bound by Supreme Court decisions addressing the comparable Fourth Amendment issue."

## Opinion text

*691 McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
Today the majority remands appellant’s conviction to the Court of Appeals to consider a ground not briefed before this Court. Instead, the majority adopts the doctrine of “independent state grounds,” and without guidance leaves to the Court of Appeals the formulation of our state law.
For these reasons I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777858. Public record. Not legal advice.