Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Comeaux

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided July 3, 1991No. 318-90Published

1ConcurrenceCampbell, Judge

I write in concurrence because I believe that the plurality’s application of the Fourth Amendment to resolve the search and seizure issues raised in the instant case is entirely unnecessary and likely incorrect. See U.S. v. Attson, 900 F.2d 1427, 1438 (9th Cir.1990) (Holding that no search or seizure occurred, under the Fourth Amendment, where a government doctor drew and analyzed Attson’s blood for “purely medical reasons,” and the doctor “did not intend to elicit a benefit for the government in its investigative or administrative capacity”). Rather I believe that the issues presented in…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. United States v. Thomas P. AttsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  2. Sher v. De HavenCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952
  3. Prader v. National Masonic Accident Ass'nSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
  4. Capps v. LynchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  5. Williams v. City of GallupNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1966

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API