Clay, Sara Kathrine

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Clay, Sara Kathrine. Read the opinion of the Court — 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 163
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided January 9, 2013·No. PD-0579-12·Published

Opinion



IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS



NO. PD-0579-12
SARA KATHERINE CLAY, Appellant


v.



THE STATE OF TEXAS



ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HILL COUNTY

Meyers, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION



If the legislature had meant to allow warrants to be sworn to by telephone, it would have said so. The majority here is doing exactly what the majority did in Spence v. State, 325 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), by broadening a statute beyond what the legislature intended. The majority here correctly points out that our Court should construe the statutory language and not enlarge upon it, and that only the legislature can amend or supplement the statute to specifically regulate the process of obtaining a search warrant by electronic means. Nevertheless, the majority still concludes that the telephonic warrant application was permissible in this case.

I would hold that only the legislature can expand the statute to allow search warrants to be obtained telephonically, and it has yet to do so. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.



Meyers, J.



Filed: January 9, 2013

Publish



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Clay, Sara Kathrine, (Tex. 2013).

Clay, Sara Kathrine (Clay, Sara Kathrine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Spence v. State
325 S.W.3d 646 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2010)