Oh! My! Effing! God!!
What a tortured, twisted, destructive court opinion.
They don't even bother to explain how the appellant's legal question is an attempt to litigate the case in pre-trial hearings--they simply declare it!!! No explanation of their rationale. No explanation of their logic. Nothing more than a distorted inference leading to their "conclusion".
Extensive case law holds--I mean extensive--that a seizure must be justified at inception. The whole point of this is to say that police cannot retroactively justify an unjustified seizure of the person. For example, it would be rational idiocy for a cop to say, "Hey! I found weed on him. That justified seizing him." Just because the cop found weed on the guy after detaining him in no justifies seizing him in the first place before the cop knew he had weed. Extensive--and I do mean extensive--case law makes it very clear that a seizure must be justified from the very beginning.
But, not in the case in the OP. Suddenly, the Texas courts can go way, way off on a tangent and evaluate whether a person is "trying to litigate the main question of the case in the pre-trial hearing". According to this Texas court, if a defendant can in any way be found "trying to litigate the main question of the case" in a pre-trial hearing, then no Texas court has to rule on whether the seizure was legally justified from the outset. Hey! Lets just switch the question! If we can find another question upon which the we can engineer a losing decision for the appellant, let's address that question, rather than the question actually presented. Shhhh. This is all legal tactics. (whisper) Don't even consider the Fourth Amendment. No, no, no. We won't ignore the question presented to the court in order to preserve the Fourth Amendment, for example if both the prosecution and defense presented requests the direct answer to which would harm the Fourth Amendment. No, no, no. We're not even going to do that. But, (shhhhhh), we're willing to ignore the Fourth Amendment--what's left of it--in order to find against the defendant.