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

Villarealv. State, 2008 WL 4367616 (Tex.App.-Houston [1't Dist]2008, no pet.).
Officer received call from dispatch that citizen was following a possible drunk driver and had
observed the defendant's vehicle pull into a parking lot where she was approached and
investigated bythe officer. The officer had dispatcher callthe citizen informant and have him meet
the officer at the parking lot where he repeated the details of the bad driving he had obserued. In
upholding the stop, the Court focused on the fact that the observations reported by the informant
of the defendant's driving behavior constituted criminal activity, specifically, DWl. Since the
informant chose to follow defendant's vehicle after reporting the conduct, he was not "truly an
anonymous informer." ln addition the officer corroborated Garcia's identification details when he
Iocated defendant's car in the parking lot.
Hawes v. State, 125 S.W.3d 535 (Tex.App.-Houston [1't Dist.], 2002, no pet.).
Police received call from tow truck driver reporting reckless driving and that he was following the
vehicle. Officer arrived and pulled defendant over based on information received and without
seerng any traffic violations. The truck driver on seeing defendant pulled over continued without
stopping. ln holding fhe sfop was valid, the Court found that by presenting his information to the
police via his busrness's dispatcher and following the suspect in his own readily traceable vehicle,
the truck driver placed himself in a position where he could be held accountable for his interuention.
Ihese indicia of reliability, when combined with the officer's corroboration of the identification
details, provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the investigative stop.
State v. Fudoe, 42 S.W.3 d 226 (Tex.App.-Austin, 2001, no pet.).
Officer's sole basis for the sfop was the details of bad driving provided to him by a cab driver in
a face to face encounter. Court held that that was a sufficient basrs for the stop of the defendant.
Court referred and distinguished these facfs from Florida v. J.L." 529 U.S. 266, 120 5.Ct.1375, 146
L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
State v. Nelson, 228 S.W.3d 899 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, no pet.).
Winborn v. State, 2007 WL 171 1791 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, pdr ref'd).
Brother v. State, 166 S.W.3d 255 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005), cert. denied,546 U.S. 1150 (2006).
Pipkin v. State, 114 S.W.3d 649 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).
State v. Stolte, 991 S.W.2d 336 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, no pet.).
State v. Sailo, 910 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995, pet. ref'd).
State v. Adkins, 829 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref'd).
Ferquson v. State, 573 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).
Albert v. State, 659 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1983, pet. ref'd).
lnformation from a concerned citizen may provide sufficient basis for officer to make investigative
sfop.
11