- Page 1 and 2: Driving While Intoxicated Case Law
- Page 3 and 4: 2. DOESN'T APPLY 18 F. OFFICER'S AR
- Page 5 and 6: K, L. M. N. o. P. o. R. NOSOUND=NOP
- Page 7 and 8: F. G. H, L J. K. L. 3. NO RIGHT TO
- Page 9 and 10: C. D. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR DR
- Page 11 and 12: E, F. G. H. t. J. K. L. M. N. o. P.
- Page 13 and 14: O. IF YOU ALLEGE MORE PRIOR DWI'S T
- Page 15 and 16: I. INFORMATION/CHARGING INSTRUMENT
- Page 17: B. IMPROPER QUESTION/STATEMENT Hark
- Page 21 and 22: V. OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE CHART The f
- Page 23 and 24: Elisibilitv for Occupational Driver
- Page 25 and 26: Villarealv. State, 2008 WL 4367616
- Page 27 and 28: out that hearsay is generally admis
- Page 29 and 30: Foster v. State, 326 S.W.3d 609 (Te
- Page 31 and 32: anyone other than officer to help h
- Page 33 and 34: F. OFFICER'S ARREST AUTHORITY WHEN
- Page 35 and 36: occur) who observed the traffic off
- Page 37 and 38: a mile in the early morning hours.
- Page 39 and 40: State v. Arriaqa, 5 S.W.3d 804 (Tex
- Page 41 and 42: explain the margin of error or the
- Page 43 and 44: P. "FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY''- SUFFIC
- Page 45 and 46: defendant from leaving. Officer sai
- Page 47 and 48: 2. REASONABLE Bohren v. State,2011W
- Page 49 and 50: Sinqleton v. State. 91 S.W.3d 342 (
- Page 51 and 52: B. BASED ON'BREACH OF PEACE'THEORY
- Page 53 and 54: IX. VIDEO A. PARTS OF PREDICATE CAN
- Page 55 and 56: Mathieu v. State, 992 S.W.2d725 (Te
- Page 57 and 58: F. ABSENCE OF VIDEOTAPE 1. NOT GROU
- Page 59 and 60: K. NO SOUND = NO PROBLEM Aouirre v.
- Page 61 and 62: R. OFFICER'S NARRATIVE ON PERFORMAN
- Page 63 and 64: was effor, albeit harmless, to allo
- Page 65 and 66: forfeited in the guilt-innocence ph
- Page 67 and 68: ecoming the focus of a DWI investig
- Page 69 and 70:
Rasan v. State,642S.W.2d 489 (Tex.C
- Page 71 and 72:
2. OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AN O
- Page 73 and 74:
the reliability of VGN before it is
- Page 75 and 76:
C. WALK AND TURN = LAY WITNESS TEST
- Page 77 and 78:
G. FAILURE TO EXPLAIN FST'S IN DEFE
- Page 79 and 80:
B. PROOF OF "STATE'' Barton v. Stat
- Page 81 and 82:
C. INSTRUMENT CERTIFICATION 1, NEW
- Page 83 and 84:
G. DIC.23 & DIC.24 WARNINGS 1. REQU
- Page 85 and 86:
warning on refusing alcoholfesfs, b
- Page 87 and 88:
efusing or of giving a sample for s
- Page 89 and 90:
2. NO EVIDENCE THAT ADDITIONAL WARN
- Page 91 and 92:
Hall v. State, 649 S.W.2d 627 (Tex.
- Page 93 and 94:
3. AFTER 2 HOURS Holloway v. State,
- Page 95 and 96:
P. BREATH TEST ADMISSIBLE AS PROOF
- Page 97 and 98:
T. LOSS OF NORMAL & PER SE LAW EVID
- Page 99 and 100:
fesf resu/fs were not inflammatory
- Page 101 and 102:
6. IMPROPER ADMISSION OF EXTRAPOLAT
- Page 103 and 104:
esu/fs. As long as fhe operator kno
- Page 105 and 106:
suggesf that he was physically or m
- Page 107 and 108:
D. PROCEDURE FOR TAKING BLOOD SAMPL
- Page 109 and 110:
Thurman v. State, 861 S.W.2d 96 (Te
- Page 111 and 112:
4. NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW WHO DREW T
- Page 113 and 114:
Biqon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Tex
- Page 115 and 116:
offense of DWI," the Court finds th
- Page 117 and 118:
8. SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT CONTAIN
- Page 119 and 120:
(b) FArAL Farhart v. State, 337 S.W
- Page 121 and 122:
consenfs, 724.012 does not apply. H
- Page 123 and 124:
in the Sfafe's case-in-chief, the S
- Page 125 and 126:
was not the result of an involuntar
- Page 127 and 128:
trance-like high. The Court affirme
- Page 129 and 130:
C. CHARGE ON WORKING CONDITION OF I
- Page 131 and 132:
intoxication sefs forfh alternative
- Page 133 and 134:
of Appeals had misconstrued the act
- Page 135 and 136:
the impairment element of the Sfafe
- Page 137 and 138:
Sledqe v. State ,1994 WL 247961 (Te
- Page 139 and 140:
V. WHEN CHARGE SPECIFICALLY USES SU
- Page 141 and 142:
Tennerv v. State, 680 S.W.2d 629 (T
- Page 143 and 144:
E. ENHANCEMENT OF FELONY DWI WITH N
- Page 145 and 146:
Also, if stipulated that there are
- Page 147 and 148:
of the priors. He then complained o
- Page 149 and 150:
K. PROPER TO ALLEGE DATE PROBATION
- Page 151 and 152:
o. IF YOU ALLEGE MORE PRIOR DWI'S T
- Page 153 and 154:
a violation of the ex posf facto la
- Page 155 and 156:
W. EXPUNCTION WILL NOT ALWAYS RENDE
- Page 157 and 158:
intoxicated (DWI) from a C/ass B mi
- Page 159 and 160:
Holmberq v. State, 931 S.W.2d 3(Tex
- Page 161 and 162:
G. NO CONFLICT BETWEEN N'DUI'' AND
- Page 163 and 164:
equipment was obserued in the vehic
- Page 165 and 166:
unning, radio playing loudly, and d
- Page 167 and 168:
wheels was consr.stent with the whe
- Page 169 and 170:
Wriqht v. State, 932 S.W.2d 572 (Te
- Page 171 and 172:
Bucek v. State ,724 S.W .2d 129 (Te
- Page 173 and 174:
concerning how recently the vehicle
- Page 175 and 176:
B. DENIAL OF PROBATION DUE TO LANGU
- Page 177 and 178:
alcohol by calling a sysfem adminis
- Page 179 and 180:
Avfor v. State, 2011 WL 1659887 (Te
- Page 181 and 182:
Carrasco v. State,712S.W.2d 120 (Te
- Page 183 and 184:
Drapkin v. State, 781 S.W.2d 710 (T
- Page 185 and 186:
Folev v. State, 327 S.W.3d 907 (Tex
- Page 187 and 188:
(Tex.Crim.App. 1988)..... .......42
- Page 189 and 190:
Human v. State, 749 S.W.2d 832 {Tex
- Page 191 and 192:
Lewisv.State,72S.W.3d704(Tex.App.-F
- Page 193 and 194:
Moncivais v. State, 2O02WL 1445200
- Page 195 and 196:
Poncev. State,828 S.W.2d 50 (Tex.Ap
- Page 197 and 198:
Schaum v. State, 833 S.W.2d 644 (Te
- Page 199 and 200:
State v. Gerstenkom, 239 S.W.3d 357
- Page 201 and 202:
Stone v. State, 685 S.W.2d 791 (Tex
- Page 203 and 204:
Vasquezv. State,2007WL 2417373 (Tex