Soileau v. State

244 S.W.2d 224, 156 Tex. Crim. 544, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1689

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 31, 1951
• Docket: 25434
• Status: Published

Opinions

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Unlawful carrying a pistol is the offense; the punishment, one year in jail.

Patrolmen of the city of Houston, while patrolling the streets of said city, about 3:30 o’clock, a. m., saw appellant in his automobile drive through a red light upon a street of said city. They pursued and arrested appellant for the traffic violation. After his arrest, a search of the person of appellant revealed that he was carrying a pistol on his person.

Appellant did not testify as a witness in his own behalf, nor did he present any affirmative defensive testimony.

The contention here is that appellant was unlawfully arrested by the patrolmen and that the search of his person was unauthorized.

Under the provisions of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on the Highways (Art. 6701d, Vernon’s Civil Statutes) it is a violation of state law for one to “disobey the instruction of any official traffic-control device placed in accordance with the provisions” of the act (Sec. 32). Also, the legislature has conferred upon the State Highway Commission the authority to place traffic-control devices “upon all state highways” (Sec. 30) and has conferred such control upon local authorities (cities) over public highways in their jurisdiction (Sec. 31). The right to arrest without warrant any person violating any provisions of the act is accorded by Sec. 153.

Appellant recognizes the foregoing provisions but insists that inasmuch as there is no showing here that the traffic-control device mentioned (red light) was not shown to have been erected, maintained, or controlled by the city of Houston or the Highway Commission, the state has not shown appellant guilty of the traffic violation or of running a red light.

We are not here dealing with the question of whether appellant was in fact guilty of such violation; all the requirement necessary for the officers to make the arrest was the existence of probable cause authorizing the belief that the traffic offense had been committed. According to the undisputed testimony, the patrolmen were authorized to so conclude and therefore to make the arrest.

It is now deemed axiomatic that a lawful arrest carries with it the right to search the person of the accused.

Believing the testimony as to the finding of the pistol upon appellant’s person was admissible, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.