Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2007

Mike Seymour Mount v. State

Mike Seymour Mount v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided February 15, 2007

Mike Seymour Mount v. State

Opinion

Affirmed; Majority and Concurring Opinions of August 8, 2006, Withdrawn, and Substitute Majority and Concurring Opinions filed February 15, 2007

Affirmed; Majority and Concurring Opinions of August 8, 2006, Withdrawn, and Substitute Majority and Concurring Opinions filed February 15, 2007.

 

 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

 

NO. 14-05-00842-CR

____________

 

MIKE SEYMOUR MOUNT, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                                                                                                                               

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law Number Eleven

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1291992

                                                                                                                                               

 

S U B S T I T U T E   C O N C U R R I N G   O P I N I O N

 


I would overrule appellant=s third and fourth points of error on the ground that: (1) the police officers had reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop of appellant=s vehicle based on the radio dispatch; (2) the challenged evidence of his intoxication would have been readily apparent in the course of such a lawfully conducted investigative detention; (3) the evidence was therefore not obtained as a result of any conduct in making the stop that could have gone beyond an investigative detention and thereby amounted to an arrest; and, therefore, (4) the challenged evidence was either not within the scope of the exclusionary rule or was subject to the inevitable discovery exception to that rule.[1]

 

 

 

 

/s/        Richard H. Edelman

Justice

 

Judgment rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed February 15, 2007.

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Edelman, and Frost (Frost, J., majority).

Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).



[1]           In response to this reference to the inevitable discovery rule, appellant=s motion for rehearing en banc states that the federal constitutional law of inevitable discovery has no place in Texas search and seizure law, citing State v. Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).  However, this contention ignores the fact that appellant=s challenge on appeal to the denial of his motion to suppress was based exclusively on the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (without  any mention whatever of the Texas Constitution).  While a State is free to provide greater restrictions on police activity under its own state law than is imposed under federal law, it may not impose any greater restrictions as a matter of federal law.  Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769, 772 (2001).  Therefore, to the extent inevitable discovery has no place in Texas search and seizure law, Texas search and seizure law has no place in this appeal.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.