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

Foster v. State, 326 S.W.3d 609 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010).
Court of Appeals found insufficient basis for stop. Court of Criminal Appeals reversed finding.
Police had reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant may have been intoxicated, justifying
temporary detention for further investigation when at 1 :30 a.m. a few blocks from city's bar district,
officer observed defendant's truck come up extremely close behind officer's vehicle at red light and
appeared to lurch. Officer then heard a rewing sound and noticed defendant's truck lurch forward
again; in light of the time of night and location, the officer's training and experience, and
defendant's aggressive driving, it was rational for the officer to have infened that the defendant
may have been intoxicated.
Derichsweiler v. State, 2011 WL255299 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011), s.ct. cert. denied, Oct. 3,2011.
The defendant was reported to be stopping next to vehicles in parking lots and staring at the
occupants of those vehicles. That conduct resulted in a 911 callthat ended with the detention and
arrest of the defendant. Ihe r'ssue - was the defendant's non-criminal behavior enough to justify
an investigative stop without reasonable suspicion of a particular offense? The Court said yes,
pointing out there is no requirement to point to a particular offense, but rather reasonable suspicion
that he was about to engage in criminal activity.
State v. Alderete, 314 S.W.3d 469 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2010, pet. ref'd).
Police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant on suspicion of DWl, where defendant
continuously swerved within her lane for half of a mile in the early morning hours, and officers were
trained to detect individuals driving while intoxicated, even if defendant did not violate any traffic
regulation.
Rafaelli v. State, 881 S.W.2 d 7 1 4 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, pet. ref'd).
Weaving in his lane, though not inherentty ittegat act, did provide sufficienf basls for officer to stop
defendant's vehicle.
Dowler v. State, 44 S.W.3d 666 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, pet. ref'd.).
In support of an anonymous tip, officer also observed defendant weave or drift within his lane of
traffic, touching the outside white tine more than once and once crossing into an on ramp when
defendant had no reason to enter the on ramp. Defendant was also driving twenty miles per hour
below the posted limit and failed to respond when the officer turned on the patrol car's emergency
lights. Officer testified in his experience it is uncommon for sober drivers to drive in that fashion.
Fox v. State, 900 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995), pet. dism'd, improv. granted,930
S.W.2d 607 [Tex.Crim.App. 1996]).
Fluctuating speed and weaving within the lane did provide sufficient basis for officer fo sfop
defendant's
vehicle.
l_5