JUNIOR LLOYD MAXWELL,FROM A DISTRICT COURT APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT DALLAS
 
NO. 05-88-00742-CR
 
JUNIOR LLOYD MAXWELL,FROM A DISTRICT COURT
 
        APPELLANT,
 
v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 
        APPELLEE.OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
 
 
 
BEFORE JUSTICES McCLUNG, ROWE, AND BURNETT
OPINION BY JUSTICE McCLUNG
MAY 30, 1989
        Junior Lloyd Maxwell appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm the trial court's judgment.        
        On June 24, 1987, at 10:15 p.m., two police officers on foot patrol in an apartment complex were talking to an individual in the open courtyard. The door to the apartment immediately behind one of the officers opened. The man in the doorway saw the officers and ran, leaving the door standing open. The officers looked into the lighted apartment and saw appellant Maxwell and another man sitting at a table which contained stacks of money, a gun, as well as vials, baggies, and other paraphernalia containing what the officers believed to be narcotics.
        When Maxwell and the other man saw the officers, they began to gather up the cash hurriedly, scattering the vials and other paraphernalia to the floor in the process, and to attempt to leave the premises. Both officers immediately entered the room and arrested both men at the table. The officers recovered from the table and the floor around the table 117 vials of what the officers believed to be crack cocaine, 15 baggies of white powder, 24 smaller packets, four pistols, and a large sum of cash.
        Maxwell asserts that the search was illegal, arguing that the officers lacked probable cause to enter the apartment and seize the evidence without a warrant. We disagree. The officers were standing in a courtyard open to the public when they saw this evidence through the open door. The officers did not cause the door to be opened. The observation of this evidence in plain view by the officers did not constitute a search of the premises. The officers could see what was visible to the public in general through the open door. Wooten v. State, 623 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Bratby v. State, 675 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1984, pet. ref'd n.r.e.).
        We conclude that upon seeing this evidence, the officers had probable cause to search the apartment. Additionally, however, there must exist exigent circumstances making the procuring of a warrant impracticable. Bratby, 675 S.W.2d at 584. We conclude that in this case that probable cause and such circumstances did exist. One possible suspect had already exited the apartment and ran away, eluding the officers. When Maxwell and his companion saw the officers, they jumped up, began stuffing the money into their pockets and to make ready to leave the apartment, spilling the vials of contraband on the floor in the process. The officers were justified in making immediate entry into the apartment to preserve the evidence, seize the contraband, money, and weapons, and to arrest Maxwell and his companion. See Wooten v. State, 623 S.W.2d at 359. (Exigent circumstances found to exist where officers testified that people had been seen going in and out of the apartment and that marihuana could have been removed had time been taken to obtain a warrant) Considering these circumstances, it was impractical for these officers to have procured a warrant. We hold that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress. We overrule appellant's sole point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
                                                          _________________________
                                                          PAT McCLUNG
                                                          JUSTICE
 
DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 90
88-00742.F
 
 
File Date[01-02-89]
File Name[880742]