Liebman v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CLINTON, Judge.
Before us are appeals from convictions for public lewdness 1 in which the trial court assessed each appellant’s punishment at a fine of $500.00 and 90 days, probated.
As we understand the contentions on appeal, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions is not assailed. However, both appellants contend the incrimina ting evidence introduced against them was obtained as a result of warrantless searches not based on probable cause.
Briefly, that evidence established that on August 3, 1979, in the Paris Adult Theatre, appellant Bloomer entered booth 14 and…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Rakas v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Brown v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- N.W. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of HoustonDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1998
- Crosby v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1987
- Rodriguez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1983
- Adust Video v. Nueces County, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1999
- State v. Brown, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1996
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.