Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...

offense of DWI," the Court finds this to just be a statement of the officer's "belief' and not a
statement of 'Tact" which distinguishes fhrs case from Dugas as it holds affidavit did not state the
offense date. Trial judge suppressrbn is affirmed. This holding was reversed by the Court of
Criminal Appealswhich upheld the warrant. ln its holding the Court sfafes thatthe four corners of
a warrant affidavit have to be considered to determine probable cause, rejecting the approach of
the lower Court which seemed to be testing the introductory statement and the description of facts
separately. lt held that the magistrate could infer that obseruations of defendant's conduct
occurred on the date specified in the introductory statement and find that this was the date of
offense. Magistrate had substantial basis to determine evidence of intoxication would be found in
defendant's blood. Evidence of any amount of alcohol or other controlled subsfance could be
probative of intoxication as it is evidence that suspect introduced substance into his body.
(b) FArAL
Crider v. State,2011 WL 5554806 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011).
Affidavit in support of search warrant to draw blood from defendant, who had been anested for
DWI, was insufficient to establish probable cause that evidence of intoxication would be found in
defendant's blood at the time the search warrant was rssued. Affidavit did not state the time that
the officer conducted traffic stop of defendant's vehicle, and nothing in the four corners of the
affidavit suggesfed what time gap existed between defendant's last moment of driving and the
moment the magistrate signed the warrant; such that there could have been a 25-hour gap
between the time the officer first stopped defendant and the time he obtained the warrant.
3. SEARCH WARRANTAFFIDAVIT LISTED THE WRONGYEAR NOT FATAL
Schornick v. State, 2010 WL 4570047 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010).
This involved a warrant where the officer erroneously listed the stop occurred on January 21 , 2008,
ratherthan January 31, 2009. Atthe hearing officertestified that itwas a clerical error. Trial Court
denied MTS. Trial Court holding was affirmed.
4. SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT HAVING MULTIPLE CLERICAL
ERRORS NOT FATAL
Salzido v. State , 2011 WL 1796431 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2011, pet. ref'd).
Defense attacked warrant because an erroneous date, June 7, 2008, was listed in warrant's first
word paragraph and the name "Hoover" appeared once where the name Salzido should have been.
He further pointed out the warrant affidavit stated the defendant was asked to pertorm standard
field sobriety test drills (plural), when only one standard field sobriety test drill was performed
(HGN). Trial Court denied the motion. ln upholding the warrant, the Court referred to the effors
in the date and name as clerical errors based on the officer's failure to change names in the
template he used. The explanation, that the defendant was initially asked to perform drills and that
so/ne were not later offered due to back rssue, adequately explained why that mistake was not a
problem. Even without the FST, there was sufficient other evidence to support the PC.
101