section 9 greater protection in Texas

1995See Autran v. State, 887 S.W.2d 31, 42 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (holding article I, section 9 provides greater protection than the fourth amendment in the context of inventories); Richardson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (recognizing that use of a pen register "may well constitute a search” under the state constitution although it would not under its federal counterpart).

1995See Autran v. State, 887 S.W.2d 31, 42 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (holding article I, section 9 provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment in the context of inventory searches); Richardson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (recognizing that use of a pen register "may well constitute a search” under the state constitution although it would not under its federal counterpart).

2023We again decline Auld’s invitation and we join our - 16 - sister courts in holding that “[t]he Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 accord special protection to people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, but that protection does not extend to ‘open fields.’” Id. at 726 ; Westfall v. State, 10 S.W.3d 85, 89 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.) (“The protections of the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 9 do not extend to ‘open fields.’”); White v. State, 890 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1994, pet. ref’d) (“We conclude that White had no expectation of privacy in the vacant

2008The Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 accord special protection to people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, but that protection does not extend to “open fields.” 14 Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 178-79 , 104 S.Ct. 1735 , 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 , 44 S.Ct. 445 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924); Westfall v. State, 10 S.W.3d 85, 89 (Tex.App. — Waco 1999, no pet.); Carroll, 911 S.W.2d at 217 ; White v. State, 890 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1994, no pet.).

2023We again decline Auld’s invitation and we join our - 16 - sister courts in holding that “[t]he Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 accord special protection to people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, but that protection does not extend to ‘open fields.’” Id. at 726 ; Westfall v. State, 10 S.W.3d 85, 89 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.) (“The protections of the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 9 do not extend to ‘open fields.’”); White v. State, 890 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1994, pet. ref’d) (“We conclude that White had no expectation of privacy in the vacant

2008The Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 accord special protection to people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, but that protection does not extend to “open fields.” 14 Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 178-79 , 104 S.Ct. 1735 , 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 , 44 S.Ct. 445 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924); Westfall v. State, 10 S.W.3d 85, 89 (Tex.App. — Waco 1999, no pet.); Carroll, 911 S.W.2d at 217 ; White v. State, 890 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1994, no pet.).

2011See Franks v. State , 241 S.W.3d 135, 141 (Tex.App.— Austin 2007, pet. ref’d).

2011See Franks v. State, 241 S.W.3d 135, 141 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, pet. ref'd).

1996Absent any argument or authority that Article I, § 9 provides more protection than the Fourth Amendment or any reason why this Court should interpret our constitution differently from the federal constitution, it has been the practice of this Court to "decline to pursue appellant's Texas Constitutional arguments for him." Johnson v. State, 853 S.W.2d 527, 533 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). [12] Bennett lives in Corpus Christi, not Kingsville.

1996Absent any argument or authority that Article I, § 9 provides more protection than the Fourth Amendment or any reason why this Court should interpret our constitution differently from the federal constitution, it has been the practice of this Court to "decline to pursue appellant’s Texas Constitutional arguments for him.” Johnson v. State, 853 S.W.2d 527, 533 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). .

2008The Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 accord special protection to people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, but that protection does not extend to “open fields.” 14 Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 178-79 , 104 S.Ct. 1735 , 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 , 44 S.Ct. 445 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924); Westfall v. State, 10 S.W.3d 85, 89 (Tex.App. — Waco 1999, no pet.); Carroll, 911 S.W.2d at 217 ; White v. State, 890 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1994, no pet.).

2008The Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 accord special protection to people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, but that protection does not extend to “open fields.” 14 Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 178-79 , 104 S.Ct. 1735 , 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 , 44 S.Ct. 445 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924); Westfall v. State, 10 S.W.3d 85, 89 (Tex.App. — Waco 1999, no pet.); Carroll, 911 S.W.2d at 217 ; White v. State, 890 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1994, no pet.).

2008The Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 accord special protection to people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, but that protection does not extend to “open fields.” 14 Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 178-79 , 104 S.Ct. 1735 , 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 , 44 S.Ct. 445 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924); Westfall v. State, 10 S.W.3d 85, 89 (Tex.App. — Waco 1999, no pet.); Carroll, 911 S.W.2d at 217 ; White v. State, 890 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1994, no pet.).

2008The Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 accord special protection to people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, but that protection does not extend to “open fields.” 14 Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 178-79 , 104 S.Ct. 1735 , 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 , 44 S.Ct. 445 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924); Westfall v. State, 10 S.W.3d 85, 89 (Tex.App. — Waco 1999, no pet.); Carroll, 911 S.W.2d at 217 ; White v. State, 890 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1994, no pet.).

2019See Flores v. State, 319 S.W.3d 697 , 702 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) -4- (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

2014See Flores v. State, 319 S.W.3d 697 , 702 n.8 (Tex. Crim.

2004See Brimage , 918 S.W.2d at 510 fn. 11 (citing Johnson v. State , 853 S.W.2d 527, 533 (Tex. Crim.

2004See Brimage, 918 S.W.2d at 510 fn. 11 (citing Johnson v. State, 853 S.W.2d 527, 533 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (“We decline to pursue appellant’s Texas Constitutional arguments for him.”)).

2004And the same court, which in Crittenden and Johnson appears to have placed into question Autran ’s specific holding concerning inventories of closed containers , has counseled that the judiciary not “create new constitutional doctrines [based on reading the state Constitution differently] without solid jurisprudential foundation” and that the judiciary create such “new constitutional doctrines” “only when unique aspects of Texas history, jurisprudence, or law support that separate interpretation.” Cobb v. State , 85 S.W.3d 258, 268 (Tex. Crim.

2004In fact, since Autran, a majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals has not found that article I, section 9 provides greater protection than that available under the Fourth Amendment in any context before it except for that in Ibarra . 7 And the same court, which in Crittenden and Johnson appears to have placed into question Autran’s specific holding concerning inventories of closed containers, has counseled that the judiciary not “create new constitutional doctrines [based on reading the state Constitution differently] without solid jurisprudential foundation” and that the judiciary create suc

1985Brown v. State, 657 S.W.2d 797, 798-799 (Tex.Crim.App.1983).” Bennett v. State, 686 S.W.2d 235 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1984). 1 In his petition for discretionary review appellant questions verity of that statement.

1985Brown v. State, 657 S.W.2d 797 , 798-799 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983)." Bennett v. State, 686 S.W.2d 235 (Tex.App. — Amarillo 1984). 1 In his petition for discretionary review appellant questions verity of that statement.

1995See Autran v. State, 887 S.W.2d 31, 42 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (holding article I, section 9 provides greater protection than the fourth amendment in the context of inventories); Richardson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (recognizing that use of a pen register "may well constitute a search” under the state constitution although it would not under its federal counterpart).

1995See Autran v. State, 887 S.W.2d 31, 42 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (holding article I, section 9 provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment in the context of inventory searches); Richardson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (recognizing that use of a pen register "may well constitute a search” under the state constitution although it would not under its federal counterpart).

2019Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion in Atwater is also not persuasive because, as article I, section 9 affords no greater protection than the Fourth Amendment, Crittenden v. State, 899 S.W.2d 668 , 673 n.8 (Tex. Crim.

2004In fact, since Autran, a majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals has not found that article I, section 9 provides greater protection than that available under the Fourth Amendment in any context before it except for that in Ibarra . 7 And the same court, which in Crittenden and Johnson appears to have placed into question Autran’s specific holding concerning inventories of closed containers, has counseled that the judiciary not “create new constitutional doctrines [based on reading the state Constitution differently] without solid jurisprudential foundation” and that the judiciary create suc

2004See Richardson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 944, 953 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (holding that pen register “may well constitute a ‘search’ under Article I, § 9 of the Texas Constitution,” despite its not being a search under the federal Constitution); see also Dix & Dawson, § 5.04 (noting that in only three situations —Richardson, Ibarra , and Autran —since deciding Heitman v. State, 815 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), has the high court construed article I, section 9 more broadly than the Fourth Amendment). 8 .

1995Id., 815 S.W.2d at 690 .

2023The State did not deny White his rights under the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution.”); Beasley v. State, 683 S.W.2d 132, 135 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1984, pet. ref’d) (“We hold that the language in Article 1, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution is substantially similar to, and not more restrictive than, the language of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

2000See State v. Ibarra, 953 S.W.2d 242, 244-245 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).

2000See State v. Ibarra, 953 S.W.2d 242, 244-245 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).

1999See Aitch v. State, 879 S.W.2d 167, 172 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 th Dist.] 1992, pet. refd).

1998E.g., Long , 463 U.S. at 1050 ; Ardoin , 955 S.W.2d at 423 ; Alexander , 879 S.W.2d at 343 ; see also Hawkins v. State , 853 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1993, no pet.) (Fourth Amendment and article I, section 9 afford same protection in this context) (citing Davis v. State , 829 S.W.2d 218, 221 (Tex. Crim.

1998Appellant argues that this case is controlled by State v. Lawson, 886 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1994, pet. refd) where we held that article I, section 9 provides greater protection from inventory searches of closed containers than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 3 But see Trujillo v. State, 952 S.W.2d 879, 881-82 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1997, no pet.); Madison v. State, 922 S.W.2d 610, 612-13 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1996, pet. refd); Hatcher v. State, 916 S.W.2d 643 , 645 *907 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1996, pet. refd) (holding that article I, section 9 does not provide gr

1998Appellant argues that this case is controlled by State v. Lawson, 886 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1994, pet. refd) where we held that article I, section 9 provides greater protection from inventory searches of closed containers than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 3 But see Trujillo v. State, 952 S.W.2d 879, 881-82 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1997, no pet.); Madison v. State, 922 S.W.2d 610, 612-13 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1996, pet. refd); Hatcher v. State, 916 S.W.2d 643 , 645 *907 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1996, pet. refd) (holding that article I, section 9 does not provide gr