holding that officer properly impounded car where driver had been arrested and “the only alternative available was to let appellant’s passenger take possession of the car,” but the passenger was unable to produce a driver’s license
How later courts described this case
- holding that officer properly impounded car where driver had been arrested and “the only alternative available was to let appellant’s passenger take possession of the car,” but the passenger was unable to produce a driver’s license
- noting that the State may satisfy its burden to establish a valid inventory search “through the testimony of the officers that an inventory policy existed and that the policy was followed” and that “[t]here was no need to introduce into evidence a written inventory”
- stating that there was no need to introduce into evidence a written inventory where officers testified that an inventory policy existed and that policy was followed
- stating the police should respect a prisoner=s wish to leave his car with a companion who had a valid driver=s license
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Autran v. State, 1992 Tex. App. LEXIS 1585 (1992)
In Kelley v. State, 677 S.W.2d 34 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), the Court held in language almost identical to that in Stephen, that Gill was factually distinguishable from the case in which the officer had obtained possession and control of the keys to the trunk of an automobile.
The opinion
MILLER, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons given in my dissent to Kelley v. State, 677 S.W.2d 34 (Tex.Cr.App. delivered this day).