*1 jury apply the term to the appeals facts and The court erred holding produce a reliable probable and consistent outcome. cause need not defined. The judgment below should be reversed. Because the term probable cause has Therefore, I would remand case to meanings different in different contexts court to address whether the commonly and is not way defined such a been harmed. jurors permits know its meaning apply easily, the term should be purposes defined for of an article 38.23 Trial
instruction. apply courts should of probable
definition cause found in
Hughes: Probable cause exists reasonably
where have trustwor- information, thy whole, considered as a Bradley DYAR, Appellant, Robert sufficient to per- warrant a reasonable son particular person to believe that a
has committed committing or is an of- The STATE of Texas. requires fense. Probable cause more No. 1794-01. than suspicion mere far less evi- dence than that support needed to Court of Criminal of Texas. conviction even that needed to sup- April port a finding by a preponderance of the evidence. (citations
Hughes, omit-
ted).
That swearing this case involves a match
between the officer
not question the focus we are called today. to decide The fact focus inquiry
of our is whether the term is a legal
technical term that the trial court
should gave have defined when it
charge jury. to the The appellant’s argu-
ments the charge given after to the
jury requested without the language are a
concern in determining whether the
lant was harmed. It does tell us
whether the trial court when it erred omit- charge.
ted the definition from the
I hold would that the trial court erred. try
It is futile measure distance with
a ruler that lacks lines of demarcation.
Telling juror to look at facts to deter-
mine whether cause existed is
equally juror futile unless the understands
and can apply term. *2 Austin, appellant. Hampton,
Keith S. D.A., Wannarka, Bastrop, Assist. Sarah Austin, Paul, Attorney, State’s Matthew for state.
PRICE, J., opinion delivered MEYERS, WOMACK, Court, in which COCHRAN, HOLCOMB, JOHNSON, JJ., joined. appeal on this whether
The issue arrest made appellant’s warrantless was in a “suspicious was while the therefore, Ar- place” authorized under ticle of the Texas Code of Crim- inal The was Procedure. while charged driving with intoxicated. trial, sup- to moved Before specimen, asserting that press the blood pursuant to an arrest. illegal was obtained hearing, the trial court pre-trial After a en- the motion and denied of nob contendere. plea tered a ar- held that the Third Court legal specimen rest and that the blood untaint- pursuant taken Dyar ed. 2001). affirm.
(Tex.App.-Austin We
FACTS in a one-car accident appellant was Smithville, Texas, midnight on around Eve, appellant, New Year’s 2000. vehicle, occupant of the was taken lone re- Hospital Smithville before the ar- scene. After sponded to accident accident, Trooper riving at the scene of the Thompson observed upside road and landed vehicle had left the to the Trooper Thompson went down. speak hospital emergency room appellant about the accident. had been that he trooper lant told New Eve partying Austin for Year’s attempting to drive Thompson’s back Houston. hospital observations at the The appellant drinking admitted to alcohol constituted the place” leading driving. The trooper noticed that the to the appellant’s lawful Id. at arrest. appellant had speech, slurred red glassy- alcohol, eyes, strong smell of and that *3 DISCUSSION many appellant’s answers were un- Generally, a ruling trial court’s
intelligible.
on a
suppress
motion to
is reviewed under
information,
Based on
above
coupled an abuse of discretion standard. Maddox
accident,
with the details of the
Trooper
(Tex.Crim.
v.
682
564
S.W.2d
Thompson believed
had
that he
established
However,
App.1985).
the instant case
Trooper
cause.
Thompson read
presents
a question
us with
lawof
based
the appellant his
warnings
Miranda
facts,
on undisputed
perform
thus we
a de
statutory warning
DWI
and arrested
novo
Guzman v.
review.
955
appellant
driving
while intoxicated.
89
appellant
The
to providing
consented
a
appellant
claims that the Court
sample
blood.
Appeals
erred when it held that
The appellant
charged by
informa-
appellant’s warrantless arrest
author
driving
tion with
while intoxicated. The
ized
Article
of the Texas
appellant moved to suppress
spe-
the blood
Code of Criminal Procedure. The article
cimen, claiming that it
obtained pursu-
in question
part:
provides
illegal
ant to an
arrest. The trial court
a)
arrest,
any peace
without
that,
denied the
finding
motion
warrant:
due to
facts
and circumstances known
1) persons
suspicious places
found in
to Trooper Thompson
night,
on that
it was
which
under circumstances
rea-
reasonable
the appellant
conclude that
sonably
persons
that such
have
show
peace.
committed a breach
See
been
felony,
violation of
14.08(a)(1).
Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art.
Code,
Chapter
Title
Penal
plea
appellant entered
of nolo
peace,
breach of the
or offense under
contendere. The trial court sentenced the
49.02,
Code,
Section
Penal
or threat-
appellant to
days
180
confinement
en, or
about to commit some of-
county jail, but suspended the sentence
against
fense
the laws.
and placed
appellant
on community
Tex.Code
Proc. art.
Crim.
supervision for
years.
two
The trial court
Specifically,
that the
argues
fine,
ordered the
pay
$750
hospital where he was
was not a
pay
$64.92,
perform
restitution of
and to
suspicious place under the
Article.
above
of community
hours
service.
Moreover,
claims
On
appeal,
appellant noted that Arti-
courts,
Article,
in interpreting the above
14.03(a)(1) permits
cle
the warrantless ar-
given meaning
have not
only
persons
rest
in “suspicious
found
places.”
places.” Dyar
2001).
The Fourth Amendment to the United
(Tex.App.-Austin
ar-
States
gued
imposes
Constitution
certain re-
hospital where he was ar-
quirements
arrests
“sei-
“suspicious place.”
upon
rested is not a
and other
E. Dix
totality
person. George
Under the
zures” of the
&
the circumstances
test,
the Third Court oí
Robert
Practice
O.
Texas
(2d ed.2001).
7.11,
§
coupled
Trooper
accident scene
But there is
warrant,
has acknowl-
Legislature
Texas
of a
general requirement
justify
edged that certain
is
States Su-
nothing
there
the United
though
even
powers
of arrest
use
indicating
prior case law
preme Court’s
Texas
issued.
warrant has
been
Amendment,
that,
the Fourth
a war-
interpreted these statutes
courts have
required
rant
to make
valid arrest.
be-
a warrant be obtained
requiring that
Watson,
428 U.S.
United States
made,
fore
unless one
an arrest
416-17,
820,
1. Various other statutes 8.04, 8.07, 18.16; throughout Code Criminal Procedure art. Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. 6701d, authorize officers to Civil Statutes § 153. particular make warrantless arrests in situa- 14.03(a)(1), Article which is the article at the scene of the accident. When Trooper here, issue allows a lawful warrantless ar- Thompson scene, arrived at the he ob- rest when officers discover a person in a single served a car accident where the suspicious place and under circumstances appellant’s vehicle had left the road and which reasonably show an offense has been landed upside down. At hospital, or is about to be committed. Tex.Code trooper noticed that the appellant had 14.03(a)(1). Crim. Proc. art. speech, slurred red glassy eyes, a strong smell of alcohol predecessor many and that origi- Article 14.03 nated in answers were unintelligible. the Penal Code of and the Further, language largely Article remains admitted to the unchanged.2 However, trooper that he legislative had been drinking and history sparse respect driving legis- night. Article, lature’s intent in passing this The Court of used the above there is no definition of “suspicious places” totality factors of the circumstances given. Therefore, this Court is left in deciding legality test
interpret Article lant’s warrantless arrest. The Court of In Lara v. this Court handed Appeals held that Trooper Thompson rea- *5 down the applied test to be an Article sonably inferred from those facts the alco- 14.03(a)(1) analysis. 177, 469 S.W.2d 179 hol likely was a factor in the accident. case, In that the de- State, (Tex. Dyar 713, 59 S.W.3d fendant was convicted of possession of a 2001). App.-Austin agree. We controlled substance and sentenced to life however, appellant, The on prison. trial, focuses the Id. at 178. At the officers hospital where the testified that arrest occurred. He they observed the defendant running argues hospital that a “suspicious from a known is not a drug house. Ibid. They place.” they appellant further testified that appre- asserts that under Johnson, hended the performed “suspicious defendant and an place” is where the search, initial upon apprehending activity criminal occurred. individuals, remaining they read the defen- Johnson, In that, this Court held since dant rights. They per- then arrest at the crime formed a second search of the defendant scene within two hours of the offense was and found a capsule of heroin. Ibid. On cause, upon probable based the arrest was appeal, conviction, this Court affirmed the authorized under Article holding that there nowas reversible error Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. John- where, under all the circumstances ob- State, (Tex. 417, son v. S.W.2d by served the officers and the facts known Crim.App.1986). fact that them, by they had cause and the lant was at the scene of the crime two defendant’s arrest was authorized under murder, hours after the was a factor in the Code of Criminal Procedure Article finding appellant was found in a 14.03(a)(1). Id. at 179. This test has been suspicious place and was also factor repeated many by occasions this Court determining probable cause. Ibid. and others. case, Johnson, In stated, this In was taken to this Court “Initially, hospital few, before the arrived at if any places we note that suspi- R.S., 1999) (current Leg., 2. Act of Jan. 59th ch. version at Tex.Code Crim. (amended 14.03(a)(1)). 1965 Tex. Gen. Laws Proc. art. Rather, court to hold that sufficient for the in and of addi- cious themselves. home, defendant, own inside his plus to an arrested tional facts available place.” “in from those facts in was inferences reasonable particular place to a arouse relation was In Thomas v. suspicion.” Ibid. justifiable of a habitation burglary for this, theft. examples intent to commit light In several of “sus- (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] In v. 673 picious places” are order. Hamel ref'd). court, noting that while pet. sur- had been under nothing inherently suspicion burglary nar- “there is veillance for walking neighborhood of a 426 about members trafficking. 582 S.W.2d cotics 1979). something in carrying down street (Tex.Crim.App. Op.] [Panel (1) one held that since shoplifting daylight,” for after broad appellant was arrested (2) set, suspicion carrying the men television due to stopped his car in an deposited property in the men was found shoplifting contraband (3) arresting offi house and Ibid. This Court held that the abandoned plain view. in the that at least one house “suspicious place” car cer knew defendant’s was a recently burglar neighborhood had been the facts because ized, heroin, was in a selling the defendant previous convictions for case, at 676. Id. place”- further known this street. burglary, —in subject arresting as the of numer- appel Finally, in Sheffield ap- burglary investigations. ous Ibid. The possession for theft and lant was arrested pellant’s behavior as the “wheel man” (Tex. 413, 414 marijuana. suspicious, front of the store was as was curiam, 650 App.-Austin), pet. per ref'd *6 hurried, the nervous and watchful behavior po (Tex.Crim.App.1983). S.W.2d 813 companions, the and his all of of aof presence lice to the were alerted handed, empty went into whom the store thought have been emerged carrying objects in their dormitory a on the in from involved a theft Thus, hands. Ibid. this Court held that Id. at Two officers previous day. the the arrest of defendant was authorized a exit building enter and saw the 14.03(a)(1). 426-27. Id. at a a with and rapid pace at wallet State, appel in hand. Douglas In the case v. the dollar Ibid. bills the the from was for after lant tried to conceal wallet murder he told that responded being officers and then the officers to calls shots grass. in Ibid. The court being by and the had found it the fired advised caller prior to defendant’s actions appellant’s location. 679 S.W.2d 790 held that the the stop pet.). investigatory no an combined (Tex.App.-Fort Worth knowledge a recent theft police that court held the defendant’s house was officers’ (1) by matching a man defendant’s in the area since there was (2) justify an ar description sufficient to body lying yard, in front dead that 14.03(a)(1) holding rest under police were informed defendant — (3) “suspi house],” had “in defendant’s location become [the there defendant body place.” and cious Ibid. See also Johnson put been seen near the had had (Tex.Crim. State, something parked a car outside the 722 S.W.2d (4) aroused (suspicions police run App.1986) back into house defendant “maintenance by a and actions of upon being house seen witness. from mess up man” arrived clean Id. at 790-91. These circumstances were who stabbing); Battles v. the law. Id. at 414. This Court held that, (Tex.App.-Fort Worth where events consistent with (defendant pet.) in “suspicious activity innocent place” when as with criminal activity, in complainant’s found gun suspect house with arrest of a based on those hand after call for events unlawful discharge of firearms— under Article defendant view of Ibid. police and homeowner defendant). police directed In Hoag placed the officers defendant under for the pur- surveillance There are also several cases which the pose apprehending him a burglary. courts have found a location not to abe place.” In Amores v. Subsequently, the officers removed the de- the appellant was arrested for possession fendant from gunpoint gave his car at (Tex. of cocaine. 816 S.W.2d him warnings. Miranda Ibid. After Crim.App.1991). appeal, On he claimed car, searching the they defendant’s the evidence was illegally seized jewelry stolen and arrested the defendant through a warrantless arrest. Ibid. This burglary for aof habitation. Ibid. The Court held that the initial de- jewelry defendant claimed that arrest, tention was an not an investigative illegally through a seized warrantless ar- stop because the officer blocked appel- rest. Ibid. car, lant’s drew his revolver lant, ordered him gunpoint, from the car at case, In that arresting officers ob- him ordered to lie face him down and told appellant park served the his car and en- he would be shot if he did not obey orders. ter an apartment complex. Id. at 379. appellant emerged When the from the complex, carrying newspaper he was arresting testified a soft drink. Ibid. The officers saw the facts known to him at the time of the something pocket take out of his 1) following: were the put it on the floor of the car. a telephone report received of a burglary Suspecting that a burglary had taken in progress involving putting a black male place, complex the officers checked the 2) something car; in the trunk of a *7 signs that an apartment burglar- had been reported location of burglary the was at an ized and found none. Ibid. apartment complex manager whose he knew to have called in reports numerous of that since the Court held 3) activity; upon arriving criminal apartment complex at the checked the and failed scene within minute report, any signs burglary, one of the he to find of there were sitting observed a black male at the wheel no other circumstances which could have 4) car; reasonably the car was backed into a appellant shown that the 5) parking space; the black male guilty burglary. was been of Id. at 379-80. Therefore, about to away drive as the officer drove in appellant the was not a sus- 6) lot; into the he that picious place knew no and the warrantless arrest “blacks” at apartments lived these at this can not upheld under Article State, time. Id. at 413-14. The officer further Lowery Ibid. See also v. 499 S.W.2d (court that, acknowledged (Tex.Crim.App.1973) at the time he arrived scene, on the no burglary occurring apartments suspicious was that were not a that, viewpoint point from his until place the because there was no evidence of weapon at which he found the in appellant how the officers knew was at car, any location, lant’s he not did observe violation that nor was there evidence con- was there); concluded that Holland Court cerning his circumstances suspicious in a Ibid. (Tex.App.- place. 788 S.W.2d v. d) 1990, pet apart- ref (appellant’s Dallas looked analysis, this first In its Court suspicious not a place ment was where known to all the facts circumstances of found in back room appellant was reasonably officer which would was apartment weapon and no his own committed that the defendant had show found, present there were items stolen 14.03(a)(1). Ibid. in crime listed Article was sight). and no contraband in Next, facts and at all the this Court looked particular to a interpreting relation claims that in a 14.03(a)(1), giv- not to show the defendant Article courts have words, In place. That is Ibid. other meaning “suspicious places.” en circum- totality used the misconception. this Court first, cause probable to find stances test interpret In Muniz this Court the crime defendant committed 14.03(a)(1) Article as the functional ed second, to find that the defendant equivalent cause. 851 S.W.2d place. Many of in a Ibid. denied, 238, 251 (Tex.Crim.App.) cert. Ibid. supported both conclusions. facts L.Ed.2d 82 S.Ct. U.S. above, (1993). Johnson, stated, interpretation, discussed That Then as that, overly cause held since the Although probable broad. this Court within two that the defendant the crime is arrest at the crime scene committed test, prob- complete upon of the offense was based part one is not the hours However, cause, un- this the arrest was authorized apply test. Court did able analysis general Article of the Texas Code correct that case. See der Procedure. ly, id. at 250-52. Criminal Johnson 417, 421 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). Muniz, In hid- was found com- holding not state the Again, this does 251. A ing his brother’s closet. Id. at test, the com- applied this plete Court se per suspicious place. closet is plete test. However, that on facts showed ap- analysis, In this stated night disappeared, the victim its Court of a knowledge pellant had been seen the scene circumstances within the near that a reasonably who which show following the murder a woman a crime is description, particular person matched the victim’s he was dirty, equivalent probable cause wearing clothes and show- functional seen wet com- particular has from a and he asked ing struggle, wounds believe deny him. a crime. Ibid. The having a witness to seen mitted *8 rea- under circumstances which point, appellant At this the became a sus- of the sonably that in the murder. showed he pect Ibid. ques- The of Ibid. felony offense murder. patrolman A to the house highway went place suspicious a tion then became what is ap- The appellant’s of the brother. Ibid. Ibid. of Article 14.03. purposes for the patrolman told pellant’s brother the appellant was if he found that the appellant would turn over the This Court he two at the crime scene within appellant’s present in the house. The were ap- house, murder, appellant wife, also nodded of the the who was at the hours nervous, pants he appellant peared bedroom the had blood towards the and the found at keys in This admitted that the hiding found the closet. Ibid. and he scene to him.3 at the and the of belonged apprehension murder Id. crime the presence The suspect impor 419-20. in a is an place by not contrived enforcement officials law tant factor.
to circumvent of a procurement the war- Therefore,
rant. Id. this Court CONCLUSION appellant’s held that the arrest was au- Reviewing courts Texas have consis- 14.03(a)(1). thorized under Article tently totality the of the circum- used case, Trooper Thompson In this arrived deciding an stances test whether in- at the scene of the accident and was proper is under Article When formed that the driver was taken to the meets, Legislature particular after a hospital. information would tend to has judicially statute or article con- been a hospital suspicious place make a which strued, changing without that statute or suspected to seek the driver who was article, presume Legislature in- we causing the accident. tended the same construction should con- tinue Marin v. applied. to be accident, hospital, At soon after trooper observed that Legislature The has not chosen to Texas speech, glassy eyes, a had slurred red interpretation after amend this Article strong many smell of alcohol and that Therefore, we reaffirm to- this Court. unintelligible. answers were day that the test under Article drinking also admitted totality a test. is driving. and First, cause defendant that the facts in to the hospital Those relation a crime be found and committed must hospital “suspicious a place.” make second, the defendant must be a provided probable Those same facts also place.” judgment to believe that cause Third is affirmed. Court drinking driving. been a determination whether COCHRAN, J., concurring filed a “suspicious place” highly place is opinion, in which MEYERS fact-specific analysis. Holland v. JJ., JOHNSON, joined. (Tex.App.-Dallas P.J., KELLER, and KEASLER ref'd). of the case indi pet. Review law HERVEY, JJ., concurred. cates that several different factors have justify used to the determination of been COCHRAN, J. However, suspicious. only one
place as J., COCHRAN, concurring which throughout factor seems be constant JOHNSON, JJ., joined. MEYERS case law. time frame between the join majority opinion. I add of a I these apprehension suspect crime and fond hope short. We comments in the one revise article any specific today, Legislature day limits will setting time 14.03(a)(1)1 clarify meaning its out the time pointing we are between *9 arrest, (a) may Any peace officer without to find 3. These facts were also used cause that the committed the mur- warrant: (1) places suspicious der. in persons found reasonably which circumstances 14.03(a)(1), persons guilty have been art. reads: show that such Crim. 1. Tex.Code Proc. warrant, persons arrest, the arrest without peace that a officer provision and under warrant, places in suspicious found “persons certain without reasonably Dix and show places.” Professors suspicious which trou- most call this article “[t]he Dawson have been persons that such autho- statutory provisions of the blesome or peace, or breach of some arrests,” good and for rizing warrantless threaten, commit some are about to or legis- little sense. “The reason. It makes against the laws.4 offense exempting arrests rationale for lative authorization statewide Without war- places’ from the ‘suspicious made not make statute, officers could local uncertain,” but, Pro- is requirement rant very limited except in arrests warrantless continue, un- this Dix and Dawson fessors passed With ordinances circumstances. the Texas certainty “has never troubled statute, howev- authority of this under the Well, has trou- phrase itself courts.”3 only make war- er, could not local officers engendered courts and has bled Texas felonies and breaches rantless arrests for En- of the convoluted constructions both those could also arrest judicial peace, of the impressive glish language who “suspicious places” attempted courts have who were found gymnastics, as our Thus, Legisla- crimes. to discern whatever commit such might soon by that might phrase. have meant subject ture to warrant- in the bar were drunks interpretations of whether our Regardless yet though they had less arrest even original or Legislature’s accord with the could be peace, prostitutes breached intent, “persons found phrase, current trade,5 and they their plied arrested as misleads the bench suspicious places,” to they like were about those who acted and bar. arrest- or home could be burglarize a store was, any crime occurred.6 ed before phrase original purpose frankly, “suspicious persons” stat- quite history. early Texas It lost the mists circum- authorizing arrests under ute in a statute appeared pre-Civil first War constitution- pass would not stances which city officials to establish lo- which allowed permitted today.7 provision authorizing al muster cal rules 44-47, 9, Chapter Woodsv. 119Tex.Crim. felony, 6. See violation of Title (1932) (police Code, peace, or Penal breach arrest and 49.02, Code, justified in warrantless was not Section Penal offense under alleyway found in behind search of two men threaten, of- or are about to commit some formally city enacted because had not church against laws[J fense pursuant "suspicious places” ordinance George & O. 2. E. Drx Robert statute; mayor testified that he Dawson, statewide pick up suspicious marshal] "told [the and Procedure Practice: Criminal Practice (2ded.2001). § they 9.61 at 555 without a warrant whether characters violating the law or not. In other were words, (stat- 556; § at see also id. 9.63 3. Id. stranger dangerous for a it would be understatement, ing, with remarkable hang if he would [Whitesboro] there to come require- "suspicious places” substance places”; suggesting that around obscure”). "remarkably ment is burglars have been would-be would arrest of enacted). had ordinance been lawful (1856). Proc. art. 211 4. Tex.Code Crim. (stat- supra § 9.61 at 556 7. See Dix & likely 295- viewed Tex.Crim. "most ing See Haller that this statute (1913) (upholding power war- delegating authorities the 162 S.W. to local enforcement prostitute provide who "had been or ordinance for law arrest of rantless they "suspi- preventively intervene when ply her vocation” under was about to persons”). statute). encountered places” cious *10 470 intervene,
law
arrest,
enforcement
crystal
are less than
clear about precisely
what those limited situations are.
town,
escort out
generally
of
or
hassle
those who were not
welcome
Pleasant-
I agree
majority
with the
implicit
its
ville,8
long
as the offense committed or
holding
“places” are not
inherently
suspicious;
people
rather it is
and circum-
contemplated
felony
was a
or breach of the
together
stances taken
that are sometimes
peace.9
legitimized
These local ordinances
suspicious.
Just as the Fourth Amend-
investigatory detentions and arrests
ment does not protect places,
protects
today
constitutionally
would
be considered
people,12 any “place” may
suspi-
become
offensive.10
cious when a person at that
location and
accompanying
Nonetheless,
raise a
the statute has survived
reasonable belief that the
has com-
virtually unchanged
century
for
almost
(or
commit)
mitted
is
about
a crime and
half,
and a
despite
other
enormous
there is no time to obtain a
If
warrant.
we
changes
statutory
constitutional
uphold
original
wish to
intent of the
search and seizure law.
is one to
What
statute,
pre-Civil
War
accord with
make
provision today?
of this
We have
considerations,
current constitutional
we
14.03(a)(1)
stated that article
“should be might
explain
prior
do well to
holdings
our
applied to authorize warrantless
arrests
organizational principle
under the
of exi-
only
situations!,]”11
limited
but our cases
gent circumstances.13
See,
634,
e.g.,
8.
certainly
regarded
Minter v.
70 Tex.Crim.
would
as constitutional-
641,
(1913) (stating
offensive”);
159 S.W.
ly
291-92
Reamey,
see also Gerald S.
duly
eveiy peace
that it
"the
officer to
“Suspicious
Arrests in Texas’s
Places”: A Rule
preserve
jurisdiction!;]”
within his
Reason,
in Search
31 Tex. Tech L.Rev.
thus,
statute,
relying
"suspicious places”
(2000) (noting
that an "obvious difficul-
"he shall use all lawful means ...
inter-
[to]
ty”
wording
with the
of article
"is
fere,
warrant,
prevent
suppress
without
legislative
passage
intent behind
crime”).
the 1856 statute has become obscured
time
and,
importantly, by
significantly
more
See, e.g.,
Ry.
9.
San Antonio & Aransas
Co. v.
changed way
viewing
constitutional con-
91, 97,
Griffin,
Tex.Civ.App.
48 S.W.
straints”).
(1898,
ref'd) (illegal
writ
arrest under
authorizing
imprison-
statute because false
11. Johnson v.
plaintiff
ment
had not been shown
nor had he threatened to commit
offense;
some such
he was arrested for hav-
States,
347, 351,
v. United
ing
389 U.S.
stolen one
Katz
dollar’s worth of coal from his
(1967) ("the
which,
S.Ct.
14.03(a)(1) justify a war- cannot be used to arrest.
rantless "vagrancy and an investi arrest for together suspect, criminal evidence rantless ing State, theft”); evanescent), v. (which gation Mason probable for automobile 503-04, 272 S.W.2d oc- 160 Tex.Crim. cause in the where the offense (1954) (warrantless arrest under "sus 528-29 curred. (footnotes omitted). upheld where officers picious places” statute Id. at 976-77 morning Negro early white men in examples earlier cases saw two Some and, boxes, neighborhood carrying cardboard upon article which relied what is now stopped and found that men what is now when officers for arrests under ciga packages of about 60 “exigent boxes contained called the circumstances” doctrine radio, rettes, State, ad matches with and book v. 383 S.W.2d include: Saldana them, officer, (when officers then on (Tex.Crim.App.1964) dress of barbecue stand 600-01 stand and found the men to the barbecue two under surveillance for took who had cabins activities, v. burglarized); McCutcheon drug into cabin that it had been saw taxicab come 419, 420-21, a.m., State, 252 S.W.2d defendant Tex.Crim. courts at 3:00 saw seat, noises, (1952) (warrantless crinkling under heard and saw arrests front 175-76 seat, upheld when something being "suspicious places” front stuffed ordinance laundry throw there was sufficient cause imme- defendants near officers saw warrant); and, Baray in ing objects hedge, diate arrest without when over 456, 457-58, having any 167 Tex.Crim. thrown quired, defendants denied (1958) (upholding legality warrant- 88-89 behind thing found two shirts but officer "suspicious places” ordi- less arrest under Tex. hedge); compare Butler up 245-46, defendant drive nance when officers saw 208 S.W.2d Crim. belonging dealer (warrantless in car to known narcotics (1947) un arrest not authorized him, upon approach, and observed officers’ store "suspicious places” ordinance when der away, throwing hurriedly look back and drive Thursday night, police burglarized on window); cigarettes Ringo v. from car license number and then defendant’s matched 93, 94, 121, 122- Tex.Crim. warrant at his home him without (when (1955) stopped because car Saturday). officer suspicious circumstances and one supra, § 9.64 at 562 & registration 14. See Dix for car while other radioed permit (reading "to warrant- Johnson v. State that he talked to defendant discovered identification, generally unemployed less arrests in situations had been had no where— state, permit do not regis- speaking arriving and car was not since —circumstances name, prearrest judicial evaluation "suspicious leisure of a defendant’s tered sufficiency”). war- evidence places” authorized defendant’s statute