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

occur) who observed the traffic offense, radioed the information to the police and stayed in radio
contact with the police up to the stop. ln effect, the sheriff's participation in the circumstances
surrounding the defendant's arrest made him just as much a participant in the anest as ff he had
seized the defendant himself.
(c) HOT PURSUIT
Yeaqer v. State, 104 S.W.3d 103 (Tex.Crim.App.2003).
After observing the defendant nearly drive his vehicle into a ditch while leaving the parking lot of
a bar within their city limits, officers followed him to further evaluate his driving and ultimately pulled
him over for investigation of DWI outside the city limits. They stopped him after they obserued him
almost hit another vehicle. The trial court held sfop was legal and the Court of Appeals reversed
holding that the officers' "Type B Municipality" authority ended at the ctty 4imits, and it further
rejected the "hot pursuit" argument as it found that there was no "chase" or "pursuit" as officers
merely followed the defendant. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that this was a good example
of "Hot Pursuit" and the dictionary definition of "pursuit" includes "follow." The test is whether the
initial "pursuit" was lawfully initiated on the ground of suspicion, and the Court found in this case
that it was. Ihe rssue of the jurisdiction of a "Type B Municipality" was not reached.
Turnbow v. State,2OO3 WL 2006602 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, May 1,2003, pet. ref'd.) (Not
designated for. publication).
Officer obserued defendant's vehicle speeding and cross over the center line five times. Though
the officer tried to initiate the stop within the county line, by the time the defendant was pulled over,
he was just under a mile across the line. The officer testified at a Motion fo Suppress hearing that
he did not feel that he was involved in a chase or in a pursuit while he followed the defendant. The
defendant was convicted at a later trial and argued on appeal that the arrest was illegal and not
"hot pursuit." The Court of Appeals found that it was a legal stop under the "hot pursuit" doctrine
and further found the doctrine applies even when an officer does not subjectively believe he is in
hot pursuit.
G. PRETEXT STOPS . NO LONGER BASIS FOR SUPPRESSION
Crittendon v. State, 899 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995).
Pretext sfops are valid so long as objective basis for stop exrsfs.
H. OPERATING VEHICLE IN UNSAFE CONDITION
Sweeney v. State, 6 S.W.3d 670 (Tex.App.-Houston [1"tDist.] 1999, pet. ref'd.).
State v. Kloecker, 939 S.W.2d 209 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet. h.).
Trial judge held that there was insufficient basis for the stop. Court of Appeals reversed holding
2t