Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 9: Difference between revisions

Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 9 (view source)

Revision as of 09:00, October 26, 2025

313 bytes removed , Yesterday at 09:00

m

no edit summary

Admin

attorneys, bureaucrats, interface administrators, administrators

6,053

edits

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 |recent=
-* ''Holder v. State'', 639 S.W.3d 704, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15255797344651249816#p707 707] (Tex.Crim.App. 2022) ("Indeed, this Court has previously observed that it was a reaction to this Court's opinion in Welchek v. State, 93 Tex. Crim. 271, 247 S.W. 524 (1922)— which first held that there is no such remedy under our state constitution—that provoked the Legislature to enact what is now Article 38.23. See Miles v. State, 241 S.W.3d 28, 33-34 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Exclusion of evidence obtained only in violation of Article I, Section 9, is exclusively a function of statute: Article 38.23 of our Code of Criminal Procedure. It follows that any error in failing to suppress evidence at trial that was illegally obtained under Article I, Section 9, is not error of a constitutional dimension, but simply a statutory violation. The proper harm analysis is therefore the one contained in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 44.2(b), not 44.2(a).")
+* ''Holder v. State'', 639 S.W.3d 704, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15255797344651249816#p707 707] (Tex.Crim.App. 2022) ("Indeed, this Court has previously observed that it was a reaction to this Court's opinion in ''Welchek v. State'', 93 Tex.Crim. 271, 247 S.W. 524 (1922)—which first held that there is no such remedy under our state constitution—that provoked the Legislature to enact what is now Article 38.23. ''See'' ''Miles v. State'', 241 S.W.3d 28, 33-34 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). Exclusion of evidence obtained only in violation of Article I, Section 9, is exclusively a function of statute: Article 38.23 of our Code of Criminal Procedure.")
 * ''Hulit v. State'', 982 S.W.2d 431, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2675282260661427505#p436 436] (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) ("It is our holding that Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution contains no requirement that a seizure or search be authorized by a warrant, and that a seizure or search that is otherwise reasonable will not be found to be in violation of that section because it was not authorized by a warrant. . . . We understand that our holding means that Section 9 of our Bill of Rights does not offer greater protection to the individual than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and it may offer less protection.")