Armstrong v. State, 550 S.W.2d 25

Armstrong v. State

550 S.W.2d 25

Tex. Crim. App.

1977

Check Treatment

*1 ARMSTRONG, Appellant, Keith Lennie Texas, Appellee.

The STATE 51763.

No. of Texas. Appeals Criminal

Court of

July 1976. Rehearing May Motion for

State’s

Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., and Marvin Col- lins, Jerry C. Gartner, Buckner and Paul E. Attys., Asst. Dist. Worth, Fort Jim D. Vol- lers, Atty., State’s and McAngus, David S. Austin, Atty., State’s Asst. for the State. OPINION BROWN, Commissioner. is an appeal

This from a conviction for of burglary offense of a habitation un- Code, der V.T.C.A. Penal 30.02. The Sec. trial was jury before a appel- which found lant guilty; punishment was assessed the court at (15) years fifteen in the Texas Department Corrections, punishment being provisions enhanced under the of V.T. Code, 12.42(c). C.A. Penal Sec. Appellant represented by appointed counsel at trial and appointed different counsel on appeal. m.,

The record shows that p. at 2:20 Janu- 5, 1975, ary Officer L. T. Department Fort stopped Worth Police Plymouth “black over blue” 1966 east side of Fort Worth. The officer stated stopped that he the car because he “had received information about ten being such a vehicle wanted for the investigation of a burglary.” Appellant driving the car and with him were Willie Arthur Sneed and Alice Miller. The officer arrested out- Sneed on standing per- warrants requested and then mission Appellant to search the vehicle. consented, and opened the trunk of car. portable In the trunk were a color televi- sion, calculator, tape play- electronic two case, trumpet ers and a and and a small containing equip- blue suitcase transistor Mrs. were ar- ment. Miller burglary rested for jail transported city Fort Worth Plymouth along with the contents of the trunk. 5, 1975,

At 7:00 m. on January Prince Ray Charles returned to his home Hardeman the east side of Fort Worth and discovered that the kitchen door of the Roe, Jr., Worth, appel- Fort open. glass Robert C. home had been broken Broken from the pane lant. window in the door was ‘Q you description recall the Ray Do the kitchen floor. scattered that a vehicle? home and determined searched television, electronic cal- color

portable It was black over blue. ‘A trumpet culator, tape players, and a two What kind of— ‘Q right. All missing. case *3 Plymouth. ’66 ‘A was over- Suppress Motion to Appellant’s you when saw Mr. ‘Q you What did do items were introduced into ruled and driving this vehicle? Armstrong Ray objections. appellant’s over evidence my proceeded him with ‘A I as the the items in court same identified lights. emergency January on from his home stolen items do when ‘Q And what did he Okay. items as the identified the Officer lights? turned on you appel- found trunk same items pulled the curb and He had over to ‘A car. lant’s vehicle. exited grounds the three have reviewed We you why you ‘Q Judge tell the Would appointed by appellant’s error asserted stopped him? grounds well the numerous counsel ‘A I received information from had pro se in the series of briefs raised error other officers Records Bureau and between November in this Court filed suspects a certain vehicle that them to be May 1976 and find 1975 and burglaries. wanted on several were disposition light of our merit. without Office at this to the Records I went those appeal, further discussion of this up record of the time and looked necessary. of error grounds suspect and did see ‘wanted’ on Although ground not raised as suspect. this brief, we have deter appellant’s of error talking I am about is suspect “The admission into evidence of mined that the Willie Arthur Sneed. appel seized from the trunk the items ‘Q Okay. Appellant timely error. lant’s car was filed on the record ‘A there was notes And Suppress the evidence seized a Motion a ’66 possibly driving he was that grounds during of the car on the the search Plymouth. illegal. search and were seizure that ‘Q was? That Sneed hearing, the trial court overruled After Yes, ‘A blue car. Suppress. Motion to The items appellant’s ‘Q any information—Was you Did have into evidence at the trial were introduced Sneed, on your information timely objections they appellant’s over on—about you have information did illegal the results were anybody else or whether he Though assigned as error ei seizure. what? all himself or wanted motion for new trial or appellant’s ther No, only information that I sir. The brief, ‘A we have reviewed the appellant’s with Willie Arthur Sneed. justice pursuant the interest of record in 13, V.A.C.C.P. Art. Section ‘Q description What was the of the ve- you got? hicle that hearing at the The record light blue, Plymouth. I ’66 ‘A It Suppress following contains Motion digits the last three received T. testimony of Officer L. concern- number, but I didn’t have the license apprehension appellant, ing digits three letters two first Mrs. Miller: —first plate. license Defendant, you saw Len- “Q When ‘Q you able to ascertain who Were Armstrong, Keith what was he nie belonged to? vehicle doing? sir, Yes, belonged it to Lennie Keith driving vehicle northbound 'A

“A He was Armstrong. Dillard Street. “Q So, Okay. your purpose what was in lounge, for back-up radioed officers and stopping place you ear? Did him then arrested Colston as he was about to you under arrest when stopped him enter car. happened? or what heldWe the search of Colston’s vehicle “A I him their asked identification. invalid, stating: “Q they produce Did identification? upon “The officers involved did not rely Yes, “A sir. they When identified any unusual part conduct on the theirselves, I advised them they appellant observed them to conclude under arrest for may activity that criminal be afoot and of burglary.” the appellant may armed and also testified Officer dangerous for their ‘probable cause’ to consented to search of his car which investigate, solely upon but relied the tel- *4 stolen revealed the items. etype. They right had a rely thereon On cross-examination Murphy stated that causing and assume the officer same knowledge his first Plymouth about a ’66 ‘probable to be issued had cause’ for an being burglary involved in a came from investigative stop, but where the record prior another officer about a week to appel- fails to reflect that issuing officer lant’s arrest. He that he said and the other ‘probable cause,’ had such the investiga- in officer looked the records and found that stop tive challenge. not insulated from Arthur Sneed Willie was wanted on an out- Whiteley Warden, Wyoming State standing warrant and that he was possibly Penitentiary [401 driving Plymouth. a blue ’66 The car (1971)]. by Murphy first seen day might very “The State proven well have appellant. arrest of He he said saw it cause, probable prove but it prob- did parked in the 2700 block of Dillard Street cause either for able ar- warrantless day and that on next he saw the car investigative rest or so stop justify as to again “appeared but it that it had been the initial intrusion involved.” painted you over with spray buy cans like in store,” giving it the over “black blue” The information on by relied Officer appearance during he described his testimo- is not Murphy provided so detailed as that ny at the trial. further stated that by agent’s teletype the federal narcotics did belonged not know that the car Colston, Furthermore, in message until after the appellant arrest when he suspicious there were no circumstances in registration checked the number the car. appellant’s driving volved down the The legality hinges day. of the search street in middle of the on There was whether or not the facts and circumstances no traffic violation to justify stop as in recited Officer were sufficient Hampton (Tex.Cr. S.W.2d stop justify appellant’s his initial ear. App.1974). “specific, There were no articu- facts, together lable with rational inferenc In Colston v. facts, those reasonably es from war Cr.App.1974)the arresting officers relied on suspicion” rant that the vehicle contained agent’s a federal narcotics teletype detailed Brig evidence a crime. United States v. message fitting a car description noni-Ponce, would in the Waco area. Colston The presence L.Ed.2d 607 The mere message companion, named Colston and his Plymouth” over ’66 “black blue seven color, gave make and number license after Officer received informa car and indicated the persons were appellant’s tion fails to car justify and be carrying armed believed to narcot “apparent ancestry” Mexican ics. The ran a Waco officers license check occupants justify a car’s failed to the auto determined regis and that the vehicle was Brignoni-Ponce, supra. search in Under the tered Colston at a Waco address. An spotted parked reversibly officer the vehicle the trial court circumstances 5,1975, L. January on Lieutenant 2:30 m. overruling appellant’s Motion erred Depart- Ft. Murphy of the Worth Police T. Suppress. Division, stopped a driven ment, car Patrol and the cause judgment reversed The on of Ft. appellant the east side by the remanded. and a was another man There Worth. purpose car. The woman approved by the Court. Opinion “possible sus- for “identification” dis- burglaries.” appellant pects in MOTION ON STATE’S OPINION upon request, and his driver’s license played FOR REHEARING Arthur” Murphy asked if he knew “Willie officer he did not. The appellant said ONION, Presiding Judge. identification, man for then asked other we opinion submission In our he was Arthur upon learning Willie the of- reversed conviction for Sneed, outstanding him on an war- arrested burglary of a habitation based fense open appellant He then asked the rant. illegality of the involved. trunk there found television the car urges we On the State set, calculator, tape trumpet players, position. argues our It that ille reconsider case and other items which and a as a gality of the search was not raised woman, as his. and the claimed appellant. This ground of error Miller, arrested for Alice *5 course, argument, provi of overlooks the jail. and taken to Later that burglary of 40.09, 13, Vernon’s Ann.C. sions of Article § Ray Prince discovered evening Charles C.P., requires this court to review which return home that his house upon his of unassigned error “in the interest in burglarized and that items found been Further, pre justice.”1 overruling the This was appellant’s trunk had been taken. suppress pre to to motion sufficient police. trial the reported to which error in admission of evidence serve presented whether Lt. question The subject suppress. was the of the motion to to was authorized make the Murphy State, (Tex.Cr. v. 530 Riojas S.W.2d 298 a week involved. The record reflects that State, Writt v. 541 424 App.1975); S.W.2d infor- or ten received (Tex.Cr .App.1976). burglaries. He concerning mation several however, testified, shall, reexamine the search “I had received information from We The other officers that question. record reflects that about Records Bureau and approval supplemented of after the record from the record be 1. submission On clearly appellate appeared and after the briefs had been filed. fore us it that there was legality appellant. question The as to the the search was without notice serious This Ellis v. was there had was affirmed. See also there evidence that been conviction 135, State, (Tex.Cr.App.1976); hearing suppress 137 it was on motion which State, (Tex.Cr.App. might light 536 shed search v. S.W.2d 377 some Almand concluded State, (Tex. 1976). question 499 S.W.2d 303 is of Davis v. which constitutional dimension. Amendment, Cr.App.1973), was reversed because the cause United States Constitu Fourth findings I, 9, tion; of fact and failed to make Texas The the court § Article Constitution. judge assigned requested as to voluntariness the tran law the cause conclusions required by hearing suppression Article scription on motion confession pend through While the case was member of Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. trial court a staff from juris brought ing rehearing, who had lost the trial court matter was court. When this this findings court, majority which made such of the case of the entire diction the attention origi previously light in and for been existence approved of the had not the action taken supplemental transcript court. this to this court. In Guzman warded nal record forwarded considered, 267, (Tex.Cr.App. findings State, 521 272 On S.W.2d v. placing conviction af 1975), approved set aside and the this court the State reversal supplemental all these material months The in the record almost three firmed. material Doug Judge approval State’s case. benefited the of the record the trial cases after writes, good frequently upon “A rule works both such material in affirm las and relied adequate precedent State, ways.” for con find ing 543 We the conviction. In Schroeder v. question. (Tex.Cr.App.1976), the record was 382 sideration S.W.2d 30 suspects

a certain vehicle and were wanted prosecution circumstances need not burglaries. several I went Rec- to the probable demonstrate cause to arrest a this up ords office at time and looked suspect inception at the existed of the de suspect did see record a ‘wanted’ tention, although such a detention is within suspect,”2 which he indicated was protection of the Fourth Amendment of related that He Sneed. Arthur Willie Constitution, the United Davis v. States fact that Sneed included .information Mississippi, 22 “possibly” driving light blue 1966 (1969), I, 676 and Article L.Ed.2d 9 § Plymouth that he only received the last Constitution. State This court has fre digits three license number. quently said circumstances short of at the time knew only by stated probable may justify cause for arrest tem and did not know what he name looked like. detention for porary purposes of inves original source since of the information is considered tigation the burglaries upon about and the car Mur- lesser intrusion the personal received phy security revealed. Whether it Leighton the individual. v. tip merely State, came some informer’s or 544 394 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); S.W.2d suspicions reflected the of other State, officers is (Tex.Cr.App. Ablon v. 537 267 S.W.2d not shown. was it or Nor reflected when 1976); State, Mann 525 S.W.2d 174 burglaries where the occurred. State, Cr.App.1975); Hernandez v. 523 410 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); S.W.2d Borner January On 1975 observed a State, (Tex.Cr.App.1975); 852 S.W.2d Plymouth blue parked in the 2700 (Tex.Cr.App. Wood day of Dillard Street. The next block 1974); (Tex.Cr.App.1970), Baity v. 455 S.W.2d 305 m., patrol, about 2:30 while on he saw a den., t. Plymouth being driven the 2600 cer 180, 27 L.Ed.2d And it has been of Dillard Street. The car block was black an occupant held that automobile is appeared blue over have been subject to a brief detention “painted spray you buy over with cans like *6 Williams, appeared pedestrian. store.” It to is a v. in the to be as Adams su State, before, same day supra; State, the car he had seen the Wood v. pra; Hazel v. when plate he checked the license it 698 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). Whether, however, plate the was. license totality circumstances the last three digits involved surrounding the are to in incident looked by earlier received is had not reflected determining police whether conduct record. Hooker, 450, v. 113 Ariz. reasonable. State observing the block Upon car in the 2600 Gastelo, (1976); P.2d 556 784 v. 111 State Street, Murphy Dillard decided to make 459, (1975). Ariz. 532 P.2d 521 While stop possible to identification of check temporary investigative detention al suspects. burglary circumstances, under certain these lowed distin circumstances must be such as to well It settled that brief “[a] guish activity person of the detained individual, in suspicious order any that of other citizen and must be identity determine his maintain objective perception on an of events based quo obtaining while momentarily status subjective information, feelings than the rather may more be most reasonable detaining justify officer. order to light in of the facts known to the officer at intrusion, Williams, the law enforcement officer must time.” v. 407 U.S. Adams facts, 143, 146, 1921, 1923, 612, specific, 32 articulable which 92 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d have (1972); 1, Terry Ohio, experience general v. 392 of his knowl 88 U.S. 1868, (1968). together edge, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 In such with other inferences from S.Ct. for what the warrant was At the trial on the merits stated there not know offense outstanding Sneed, warrant but the issued. otherwise described. We do warrant was not

n urges that found therein. The State facts, reasonably warrant would those search, made, voluntarily dissi the citizen de on the freedom of consent intrusion taint of the detention and made investigation. pated United for further tained 873, 95 of the search admissible. See 422 U.S. fruits Brignoni-Ponce, v. States State, (Tex.Cr.App 2574, (1975); Terry v. 500 S.W.2d 523 45 L.Ed.2d 607 Potts v. S.Ct. State, .1973). Ohio, Mann supra; supra; Ablon v. supra; Hernandez v. v. tree” poisonous The “fruit of the faith, Thus, the absence of bad even in explained Wong length at Sun doctrine is ille based “on mere hunch” detention 407, States, 471, United suspicion must be a reasonable gal. There (1963), serves exclude law enforcement officer that some products only the direct but evidence activity ordinary out of the is or had oc Amend products of Fourth also the indirect curred, suggestion some the de to connect classified Evidence is not ment violations. activity, person tained the unusual however, exclusion, requiring aas fruit activity indication that the is related some dis merely because it would not have been 332, Fortier, crime. State v. 113 Ariz. primary invasion. covered “but for” Hooker, 1206, 1208(1976); 553 P.2d State v. “Rather, apt question such the more supra; Superior Irwin Los An Court of ‘whether, granting a case is establish- County, Cal.Rptr. 1 Cal.3d

geles primary illegality, of the the evi- ment Where the events are 462 P.2d objection to which instant is made dence as consistent with innocent activity with by exploitation at of that has been come activity, criminal detention on those based sufficiently illegality or instead means Superior is unlawful. events Irwin Court distinguishable purged pri- to be Angeles County, supra. of Los ” mary Wong taint.’ v. United Sun In addition to lack reliability States, at at received, Lt. Murphy information had it is at 455. L.Ed.2d that at observed the time of the it has been there When established that violation, case instant there was no traffic seizure, illegal was an “has the State Murphy did not any observe other of- persuasion ultimate burden show being committed any fense nor was there evidence is untainted . its . . [B]ut suspicious activity evidence criminal the same time [the defendant] suggestion any There afoot. go specific must forward with evidence illegality. Murphy did not know demonstrating taint.” United Alderman v. any or Alice Miller and not received *7 165, 961, States, 22 394 U.S. 89 S.Ct. information about them. He did not know 176 L.Ed.2d did know he except by name and not produced By consenting search, was in the car until he identifica- to a an individual Although Murphy may may right tion. have been act- waive his and dis- constitutional faith, ing good question legality a detention on a pense based the of the State, that under or v. illegal. mere hunch is We hold an arrest detention. Potts Cf. the here does

the circumstances detention satisfy the above test. The detention by the And it has been said that consent just of fishing expedition was the sort here defendant, sufficiently if act of free will I, 9 Fourth and Article § the Amendment the unlawful purge primary to taint of Constitution, designed were to State United (Wong or detention Sun v. arrest prohibit. 486, States, at supra, 371 83 S.Ct. U.S. at 416) produce degree of argues stop may requisite The even if State Fortier, illegal appellant “attenuation.” See v. 113 was consented to State 332, (1976); People v. car trunk and therefore the 553 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Sesslin, 428, overruling Cal.Rptr. 68 at 67 not err in Cal.2d 418 trial did 416, (1968),cert. at 439 P.2d 321 at 328 suppress to evidence of the items 409 motion 32

den., 1080, 850, 393 by police U.S. 89 S.Ct. 21 L.Ed.2d arrested officers and taken on the 772. police other side car up. and beaten effective, Before consent is how- deemed The fact a person is under ever, prosecution prove must by clear not, arrest does itself, prevent and of convincing and evidence that the consent voluntary frée consent being giv from freely voluntarily given, Bumper v. State, v. en, supra; State, Potts Valerio v. Carolina, 543, 1788, 391 88 North (Tex.Cr.App.1973); 892 Weath 1792, 20 (1968); Paprskar L.Ed.2d 797 v. State, erly v. (Tex.Cr.App. 477 S.W.2d 572 State, 484 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), S.W.2d 731 1972); State, Brown v. 443 S.W.2d 261 physically and neither nor psychologically Cr.App.1969), requirement there State, coerced. Potts v. supra; 51 Tex. person that a be right informed of his to Jur.2d, 1, Seizures, Part Searches and § refuse to consent consent can be Decker, Phelper also v. See 401 F.2d voluntary. held to free Schneckloth (5th 1968). Cir. Bustamonte, supra; State, v. DeVoyle v. The issue of whether consent to a search 77 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).3 While voluntary was in fact or product was the this is true when the fact of the illegal coercion, or express implied, duress is a is considered in the of all detention question of fact be determined circumstances, other we conclude the evi totality of the circumstances. Schneckloth through exploitation dence was seized Bustamonte, v. illegal “by rather than means suffi (1973); Resendez v. ciently distinguishable be purged (Tex.Cr.App.1975); S.W.2d 700 Potts v. taint.” primary Wong Sun v. United Pike, supra; United States States, supra. The State did not sustain its (5th 1971); Jensen, F.2d 191 Cir. State burden. (1975); 111 Ariz. P.2d State motion for State’s over- Fortier, supra. ruled. In the instant case there was con- some in the testimony flict about how the trunk DOUGLAS, Judge, dissenting. opened. car hearing At A full recitation of what occurred will be suppress the motion to Lt. Murphy, who tried, out. After the appellant set ease was he related uniform and armed and his counsel were apparently satisfied time, appellant open stated he asked the right the officers had a trunk and he car did. He stated he had automobile filed appellate because the brief arresting finished Willie Sneed and with the trial court did not raise him, handcuffing and from his trial testi- ground of error. This matter was not appears placed mony it way raised it any when record or in prior arrest request under to his have reached the Court. Article V.A.C. opened. No warnings given trunk C.P., controls what matters shall be includ- right to refuse to consent. in the record. Section of the Article ed hearing At the the motion to suppress provides: Willie Sneed testified that after his arrest *8 keys opened for may asked and party “Each file with the clerk The appellant

trunk himself. testified that designation specifying written matter for placed Sneed and Murphy handcuffed inclusion the record. The failure of police in the car and then for designated asked the clerk to include matter keys, gave which he the officer he ground complaint ap- will be for not felt peal he had no other He designation choice. related if the specifying such preceding November he be had been matter not filed with the clerk within warnings police practice give al- good State, supra, to such DeVoyle it was held to be In required. though not designating for mate- time limits giv- “The appeal notice of is sixty days after etc., record, record, filing the in the rial article and should be in the all set out are any designate did not of the carefully read.” for to be in- matter that used reversal his commen- Judge also wrote in Onion complaint and filed no cluded the record tary follows: days sixty the record within after notice to given. appeal the trial procedure “This allows complet- to examine opportunity full provides Section 5 of Article 40.09 record, study arguments and hear ed reporter report any portion the court shall to the same grant new trial briefs proceeding requested by party either appellate court. The as would the extent by directed the court. This record to completed rec- seeing the after defendant paid by be for or if he is he which in- present errors on may ord it paid is to be for indigent by general rely on to the trial court. appeal to tends county where the offense was

funds the time between conviction “While to have alleged been committed. length- undoubtedly appeal will exception was filed under Sec- No bill cases, of cases the number in some ened pro- 6(a) Article 40.09. tion Section many be reduced and should appealed approve that the court shall the rec- vides unnecessary reversals eliminated.” fifteen after com- ord within notice of (Tex. Conerly record if there is no written pletion for extension Cr.App.1967), a motion objection present to it. In the case there and his of facts to file statement time objection was no the record. inability pay for the same affidavit of give Section 15 of Article 40.09 does not had been appeal the record on after filed authority to this Court order a trial court to objection without the court approved prepare designated by record not either came too late. clerk and filed gives It party. only this Court the authori- State, 485 In Utsman ty any paper to send for or exhibit of the court Cr.App.1972), the refusal for inspection. its time to file a state grant an extension of judge trial given not opportu- an of facts was abuse of discretion ment not upon nity pass ground this of error. the motion for extension was filed on where day to file statement facts last commentary In the under Article any time. not been ordered Morrison, formerly A. had Honorable W. Court, wrote: the statement of facts on only was Not judge given “. . properly . trial before the suppress motion to [I]f opportunity study Court, prepared. the record of the been never have it should directed, presided, trial over which read with- of the staff was A member Court, argument points briefs and hear on the the trial authority to have out raised, recognize many cases he would a statement of facts court see that the fact that reversible error was in this Court. suppress was filed motion promptly grant case and that he would was ad- majority of Court After trial and set the case at once new down here on record was vised that additional retrial, avoiding thus the inherent request, it still considered the unauthorized pro- delay appeal occasioned majority of the Court only has the it. Not tecting appellate action, record of which so it has unauthorized sanctioned the many judges justifiably able trial are erroneously upon decided the case the facts.

proud.” only unrea- It should be remembered that are searches forbidden. sonable given by Judge The advice in his *9 Onion original and on motion for commentary to the Article should be ob- submission On majority rules that the initial is as follows: served. It 34 appellant of the car that driving was the items from the took illegal.

was The search was city Sneed, made to the hall. a passenger trunk Armstrong car, consent of after the officer had outstanding in the was arrested cause to the car. warrant. objection

There was that the p. At m. the approximately 7:00 same arrest illegal. and detention were Ray Cher Prince day, Charles returned to his State, ry v. 488 744 (Tex.Cr.App. S.W.2d Fort home east side of Worth 1972), denied, 909, cert. 93 S.Ct. U.S. found that his been house had broken into 1538, 199, this L.Ed.2d Court held that a and discovered items which had argument ground support of error and in its found appellant’s in the of been trunk car overruling “trial erred in missing. were suppress motion to fruits of the stop ap The State contends that motel the search of the room in which the pellant’s proper investigato vehicle was for question spe events in occurred” not ry purposes. The Fourth Amendment does enough comply cific with Article require policeman quan who lacks the 9, V.A.C.C.P., appeal an governing Section necessary tum probable of information for brief. It was not considered. More notice simply shoulder shrug cause and al given judge trial in that ease than crime to criminal escape. low a occur or a given present case where no 143, Williams, v. Adams 407 U.S. 92 S.Ct. suppress motion to was mentioned in the 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 Circumstances brief. probable which are insufficient establish objection in the insufficient for may justify temporary cause arrest de present properly case and record is not purposes investigation tention since majori- help before us. But with the a lesser involves intrusion acting designating ty in lieu counsel upon personal security of an individual part of the record after the has been time Terry Ohio, does an than arrest. v. expired,1 sake it will assumed for the 88 S.Ct. (1968); argument question State, Baity v. 305 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), 455 S.W.2d us. properly before denied, rt. ce purposes may 27 L.Ed.2d 158. Such Approximately week to ten the identity include determination of burglary, Lieutenant L. Murphy T. suspicious momentary preser individual or Department Police the Fort Worth and oth- quo of the status order to obtain vation er officers received information that Willie Williams, v. su information. Adams more and a car Arthur Sneed were wanted in State, pra; v. Wood burglaries. connection with several A war- principle Cr.App.1974). We reaffirmed this rant had been issued for Sneed. Officer State, recent decision of Abion given had been the last numerals 267 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). plate of the license S.W.2d of the car. occupant An automobile 5, 1975,

At about m. of an 2:30 on January as is a pedestri- to a brief detention stopped subject Officer the car the east Williams, supra; Wood v. driver, Appellant, side Fort Worth. an. Adams giving search, after to a Hazel opened consent See course, key. portable (Tex.Cr.App.1976). trunk with his It Of contained a set, calculator, must specific color television electronic have the officer articula- which, experience of his tape trumpet players, two and other facts ble reasonably warrant knowledge, items. stated that these items general Ohio, stop. supra; belonged Terry v. United to him. then arrested such majority majority Court order it 1. The has not determined who is to effort to have pay Many appellants for the record. future that cost. to save grounds will of error with in an raise no record *10 an arrest and other probable cause for the 422 U.S. Brignoni-Ponee, States from (1975); Baity arrest cannot be insulated illegal v. wise 45 L.Ed.2d 607 S.Ct. arresting by the decision of the challenge rely aon fellow officer’s determi officer case had In the instant Officer probable cause. nation of an inves- information to warrant sufficient bar, He was did appellant’s vehicle. tigative Officer case at In the re- outstanding warrant on he on the information solely aware rely Knowing might that Sneed and other be driv- Records Bureau Sneed. from the ceived Plymouth, he light Rather, observed the Bureau ing blue went to he officers. vehicle was a “black over that record The up and looked Sneed’s record. He further observed Plymouth. the out- concerning blue” information contained recently painted been the car had descrip- that warrant on Sneed standing buy you can “like in store.” spray burgla- in involved of the vehicle tion last numer- also knew the three The officer was sufficient ries. This information plate of the license wanted auto- als investigative stop of the vehicle. justify the mobile. majority holds that there was The experi- had years’ seven Officer Armstrong though even illegal detention gener- experience In of his ence. description of car that had a the officer specific he facts knowledge, articulated al and knew burglaries in the been used had in- which, together taken with the rational outstanding for warrant there was facts, reasonably those indi- ferences He also had information that Sneed. appellant’s vehicle been involved cated burglaries. The in the crude involved activity. He determined that criminal in car after the officer first paint job on the investigative necessary or- gave which to the information it added saw The to obtain further information. der right the car. The to detain the officer justified. stop was judge a give did not the trial majority upon the The in- pass question. chance to legality stop, of the initial view the officer was reasonable. vestigation by from the trunk of the items seized right arrest Sneed and then He had properly admitted into evi- vehicle were learning to search the car. Upon had consent identity, Sneed’s dence. was authorized to arrest him the officer on on motion for opinion The outstanding Appellant warrant. denied officer did not have reliable states knowing Sneed. Under these circumstanc- ques- Does an officer have information. es, request permission Murphy’s look which a war- under tion the circumstances the trunk was reasonable. making stop was obtained before rant voluntarily consented to the search. See opinion states that The also arrest? Bustamonte, Schneckloth does the record. How was not in warrant right of the officer at that affect opinion in this cause relied the arrest? time made (Tex.Cr. Colston v. every week that this Practically we hear There, point. App.1974). Colston not appellate the busiest Court is arrested Colston for Waco officers two case in this happened all that With nation. dangerous drug. They acted of a possession appeal not to would be foolish a defendant solely teletype dispatch strength might get case, majority every because agent. The by a federal narcotics sent something he did not him free record agent’s information of the federal source case. then reverse the desire and revealed, and if an informer was never be set aside and

involved, The reversal should showing to the there was af- of the conviction should be judgment reliability such informer. We held dispatch had no officer who issued firmed.