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

2. DOESN'T APPLY
18
F. OFFICER'S ARREST AUTHORITY WHEN OUTSIDE JURISDICTION . .
19
1. FOR A TRAFFIC OFFENSE
(a) STOPS MADE BEFORE 9-01-05 = NO
(b) STOPS MADE AFTER 9-0't-05 = YES
19
19
19
2. CAN STOP AND ARREST FOR'BREACH OF PEACE'' . . . . .
19
3.
4.
TO MAKE ARREST FOR DWI
FAILURE TO NOTIFY OFFICERS WITHIN JURISDICTION
DOES NOT VIOLATE EXCLUSIONARY RULE
20
20
5. CITY VS. COUNTY-WIDE JURISDICTION
20
(a) CoUNTY-WIDE
20
(b) oFFrcER WrrHrN JURTSDTCTTON'S PART|CTPATTON . . . . .20
G.
H.
t.
(c) HoT PURSUIT . . .
PRETEXT STOPS - NO LONGER BASIS FOR SUPPRESSION
OPERATING VEHICLE IN UNSAFE CONDITION
FAILING TO DIM LIGHT
21
21
21
22
J. RAPI D ACCELERATION/SPINN I NG TI RES
22
1. YES .
22
2. NO..
22
K. WEAVING WITHIN LANE .
1. YES .
22
22
NO ..
24
L. DEFECTIVE TAIL LAMP AS BASIS FOR STOP
25
1. NO ..
25
2. YES.
25
M. MUST MDAR EVIDENCE MEET KELLY TEST?
1. YES .
26
26
2. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF RADAR
26
3.
4.
RADAR MEETS 1ST PRONG OF KELLY TEST
LIDAR RADAR AS SOLE BASIS FOR STOP WITHOUT PROOF OF
26
RELIABILITY IS INSUFFICIENT
27
N.
o.
5. RADAR NOT NEEDED TO JUSTIFY STOP FOR SPEEDING
CITIZEN'S ARREST FOR "BREACH OF THE PEACE'AS BASIS FOR STOP
TURNING/EXITING WITHOUT A SIGNAL
1. YES .
27
27
28
28
P.
2. NO..
"FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY'- SUFFICIENT DETAIL?
1. NO ..
28
29
29
2. YES,
29
O.
R.
DRIVING UNDER THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT
1. INSUFFICIENT ON THESE FACTS
2. SUFFICIENT ON THESE FACTS
APPROACHING A VEHICLE THAT IS ALREADY STOPPED
30
30
30
30
1. ENCOUNTER ....
30
2. NOTAN ENCOUNTER....
32
3. APPROACHING DEFENDANT OUTSIDE OF AND AWAY
FROM VEHICLE = ENCOUNTER
32
S.
T.
PLATE OBSCURING STATE SLOGAN AND IMAGES PROVIDES
BASIS FOR STOP
DRIVERS LICENSE CHECKPOINT
32
32
1. UNREASONABLE.
32
U.
V.
2. REASONABLE ..
VEHICLE STOPPED AT LIGHT
ONE OF THREE BRAKE LIGHTS NOT WORKING . .
33
33
34
l_ t_