State v. Wagner

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

State v. Wagner

810 S.W.2d 207, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 104, 1991 WL 87590

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 29, 1991

Docket724-90

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 810 S.W.2d 207 (State v. Wagner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Wagner, 810 S.W.2d 207, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 104, 1991 WL 87590 (Tex. 1991).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge.

After a preliminary hearing, a County Court judge in Dallas held that evidence to be used against appellee, Charles Lee Wagner, obtained through a sobriety checkpoint stop, was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The State appealed and the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. State v. Wagner, 791 S.W.2d 573 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990). The State then sought discretionary review from this Court asking that we examine the Court of Appeals’ holding in light of Michigan v. Sitz, - U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). We granted the State’s petition.

The Court of Appeals principally relied upon Higbie v. State, 780 S.W.2d 228 (Tex.[208]*208Cr.App.1989) (plurality opinion), to find that stopping appellee’s ear at a sobriety check point by police officers “was not based on reasonable suspicion but was designed to be preemptive in nature and premised on nothing more that inarticulate facts — hunches that criminal conduct would occur.” 791 S.W.2d at 576. As such, the Court of Appeals concluded that the stop “was an infringement of individual freedom of privacy and travel.” Id.1

In King v. State, 800 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), we determined that Higbie, along with its progenitors from this Court, had been overruled by Michigan v. Sitz to the extent that such cases purported to be based upon the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 800 S.W.2d at 529. Accordingly, to the extent that the Court of Appeals decision relied upon Hig-bie, it is reversed.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for consideration in light of Michigan v. Sitz, supra, and King v. State, supra.

BAIRD, J., dissents.

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

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge.

After a preliminary hearing, a County Court judge in Dallas held that evidence to be used against appellee, Charles Lee Wagner, obtained through a sobriety checkpoint stop, was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The State appealed and the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. State v. Wagner, 791 S.W.2d 573 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990). The State then sought discretionary review from this Court asking that we examine the Court of Appeals’ holding in light of Michigan v. Sitz, - U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). We granted the State’s petition.

The Court of Appeals principally relied upon Higbie v. State, 780 S.W.2d 228 (Tex.[208]*208Cr.App.1989) (plurality opinion), to find that stopping appellee’s ear at a sobriety check point by police officers “was not based on reasonable suspicion but was designed to be preemptive in nature and premised on nothing more that inarticulate facts — hunches that criminal conduct would occur.” 791 S.W.2d at 576. As such, the Court of Appeals concluded that the stop “was an infringement of individual freedom of privacy and travel.” Id.1

In King v. State, 800 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), we determined that Higbie, along with its progenitors from this Court, had been overruled by Michigan v. Sitz to the extent that such cases purported to be based upon the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 800 S.W.2d at 529. Accordingly, to the extent that the Court of Appeals decision relied upon Hig-bie, it is reversed.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for consideration in light of Michigan v. Sitz, supra, and King v. State, supra.

BAIRD, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

810 S.W.2d 207, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 104, 1991 WL 87590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wagner-texcrimapp-1991.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack