Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
69 citation events (56 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Garry Lee Atterberry v. the State of Texas (texapp, 2022-08-22) · Strongest negative: in the Interest of R.H. (texapp, 2006-11-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" in the Interest of R.H. (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2006 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Stewart v. State , 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garry Lee Atterberry v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
See Woodard, 341 S.W.3d at 412-13 (an officer- suspect encounter was consensual where the officer, who had a description of the suspect, stopped the suspect and asked him if he had been involved in an accident); Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (holding that an officer-citizen encounter did not implicate the Fourth Amendment where the officer shined his flashlight at a van and walked toward it, and where the officer did not exercise any authority over the defendant until after he smelled burning marijuana coming from the van); Johnson v. State, No. 08-99-0…
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Cynthia Priddy
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
See Merideth , 603 S.W.2d at 873 ; Stewart v. State , 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Priddy
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
See Merideth, 603 S.W.2d at 873 ; Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Woodard, 314 S.W.3d at 95 ; Bryant, 161 S.W.3d at 761-62 . 8 Smell of Alcoholic Beverage, Glazed and Bloodshot Eyes Provided Reasonable Suspicion for Detention Once appellee rolled down her window and Sergeant Klenk “smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from the vehicle” and saw appellee’s bloodshot and glazed eyes, the voluntary encounter became an investigative detention based upon reasonable suspicion that ap-pellee had been driving while intoxicated.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bryant Keith Laughlin v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
App. 1980); Stewart v. State , 603 S.W.2d 861, 861-62 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Garcia-Cantu, Candelario
Tex. Crim. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
The video recording confirms this. 12 225 S.W.3d at 822 . 13 Id. at 823 (citing Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Garcia-Cantu (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
The video recording confirms this. [12] 225 S.W.3d at 822 . [13] Id. at 823 (citing Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980) (police officer had spotlighted parked van in residential area at night and then approached it; court noted that the "mere approach of the police officer to the van interfered with no one's freedom of movement and caused minimal inconvenience and loss of time.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Garcia-Cantu, Candelario
Tex. Crim. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Id. at 823 (citing Stewart v. State , 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Candelario Garcia-Cantu
Tex. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Furthermore, in evaluating a similar argument over whether the police could spotlight and then approach a parked van at night in a residential neighborhood, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stated that the "mere approach of the police officer to the [vehicle] interfered with no one's freedom of movement and caused minimal inconvenience and loss of time." Stewart v. State , 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Garcia-Cantu
Tex. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Furthermore, in evaluating a similar argument over whether the police could spotlight and then approach a parked van at night in a residential neighborhood, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stated that the “mere approach of the police officer to the [vehicle] interfered with no one’s freedom of movement and caused minimal inconvenience and loss of time.” Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (holding no unconstitutional search and seizure occurred).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
The State cites Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), as authority for the spotlight stop.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reynolds v. State
Tex. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
The State cites Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) and Merideth v. State, 603 S.W.2d 872, 873 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) as authority for its contention.
cited Cited as authority (rule) in the Matter of G. L. v.
Tex. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
App. 1980); Stewart v. State , 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. State
Tex. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980); cf. Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 569, 574-75 , 108 S.Ct. 1975, 1977, 1980 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988) (police driving down street without flashing lights or sounding siren was not a *716 show of authority such that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Juhasz v. State
Tex. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 17 , 88 S.Ct. 1868,1877-78 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); see Boyd v. State, 811 S.W.2d 105, 125 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).
discussed Cited "see" Michael Wayne Williams v. the State of Texas (2×)
Tex. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
App. [Panel Op.] 1980)); see Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited "see" Derick Dewayne Hunt v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Woodard (2×)
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (holding a consensual encounter initially occurred when officers approached a parked van and shined their spotlights into the van, but it became a reasonable and valid investigatory detention when the driver exited the vehicle and the officers smelled marijuana).
discussed Cited "see" State v. David Wayne Woodard
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited "see" State v. David Wayne Woodard
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stewart v. State , 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see" Doris Neal v. State
Tex. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stewart v. State , 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see" State v. Katherine Marie Carter
Tex. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
App. 2002). 12: See Stewart v. State , 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited "see" Rose, Alan Vantlan v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stewart v. State , 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Vaughn Terrell King v. State
Tex. App. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
App. 2010); see also Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lopez v. State
Tex. App. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
An officer can approach an occupied motor vehicle and knock on the window without effecting a “stop.” Merideth v. State, 603 S.W.2d 872 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); see also Stewart v. State, 603 S.W.2d 861 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Isam v. State, 582 S.W.2d 441 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); and Thomas v. State, 633 S.W.2d 334 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1982, pet. ref’d).
Karl STEWART, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
63653, 63654.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 28, 1980.
603 S.W.2d 861
Robin Collins, Nacogdoches, for appellant., Herbert B. Hancock, Dist. Atty. and Martha J. Sullivan, Asst. Dist. Atty., Nacogdo-ches, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Douglas, Roberts, Clinton.
Cited by 47 opinions  |  Published

[*862] OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

These are appeals from revocations of probation for possession of marihuana. Punishment was assessed at five years.

Two police officers of the Nacogdoches Police Department testified that, at night, while on routine patrol through a residential neighborhood, they observed a van and an automobile parked at the end of a dead end street in front of a house then under construction. There were no other homes on the block.

As the police officers approached the van, they shined their spotlights into the van and saw four people inside. The policemen left their car and approached the van on foot. The man on the driver’s side of the van got out. When he did so, the police smelled the odor of burning marihuana. The driver gave consent to search the van. The marihuana was in the van when this consent to search was given. Officer Russell Hayter stated that as he looked into the van he saw a red and white knapsack. After all four occupants were outside the van, Officer Hayter saw the knapsack again, this time underneath the van. When he opened it, he found several plastic bags of marihuana. The other occupants of the van testified that the marihuana belonged to Stewart.

Stewart contends that the police officers did not have sufficient articulable circumstances to justify an investigatory stop according to the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See Ablon v. State, 537 S.W.2d 267 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). The officers did not stop Stewart. The van was already stopped. Stewart got out of the van without being requested to do so.

In Terry v. Ohio, supra, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution became applicable only when the individual is “seized”, that is, whenever a police officer accuses an individual or restrains his freedom to walk away. See Armstrong v. State, 550 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). The intrusion of an individual’s expectation of privacy must be balanced against the promotion of a legitimate government interest in the continuing investigation of crime. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1396, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979); United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977).

In the present case, there was no intrusion on Stewart’s expectation of privacy. The police exercised no authority until after they had smelled the odor of burning marihuana. The driver of the van was not ordered out of the van; to the contrary, the record shows he got out of the van before the police officers got near the van. The mere approach of the police officer to the van interfered with no one’s freedom of movement and caused minimal inconvenience and loss of time. There was no unconstitutional search or seizure. No abuse of discretion in revoking probation has been shown.

The judgments are affirmed.

ROBERTS and CLINTON, JJ., concur in the result.