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

explain the margin of error or the underlying scientific theory of radar and no evidence showing the
validity of the underlying theory or technique applied was offered. The appellant objects and cites
Ochoa for the proposition that the predicate under Kellv was not met. The Court rejects that
argument holding that in light of society's widespread use of radar devices, '\ue view the underlying
scientific principles of radar as indisputable and valid as a matter of law." Allthe State needed to
esfabfsh was that the officer applied a valid technique correctly on the occasion in question and
the Court finds that a trier of fact could have found the officer's testimony sufficient.
4. LIDAR RADAR AS SOLE BASIS FOR STOP WITHOUT PROOF OF
RELIABILITY IS INSUFFICIENT
Hall v. State, 297 S.W.3d 294 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009).
Ihr's case involved a sfop for speeding based on LIDAR radar device. ln finding there was no PC
to support the stop, the Court of Criminal Appeals held there was no evidence that the LIDAR
device uras used fo confirm the anesting officer's independent, personal obseruation that defendant
was speeding. There was no evidence to show that use of LIDAR technology to measure speed
supp/ies reasonably trustworthy information or that the trial judge took judicial notice of this fact,
aswellasfusbasr.sfordoingso. Asaresult,theStatefailedtoestablishthattheofficer,whorelied
solely on LIDAR technology to conclude that the defendant was speeding, had probable cause to
stop him.
5. RADAR NOT NEEDED TO JUSTIFY STOP FOR SPEEDING
Deramus v. State,2011 WL 582667 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2011).
Officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was violating the transportation code by driving
at a speed that was neither reasonable nor prudent as required to supportthe traffic stop. Although
there was no evidence of the posted speed limit and no radar was used, the officer testified that
defendant was driving at a speed that exceeded the speed limit as he was familiar with what a car
traveling that block looked like at the speed limit. ln upholding the stop, the Court points out an
officer ls nof required by statute fo use radar to confirm spee4 and that it is not always possible
for an officer to do so. Nor does fhe Sfafe have to show the defendant actually committed a traffic
violation as long as evidence shows officer reasonably believed a violation occurred.
N. CITIZEN'S ARREST FOR "BREACH OF THE PEACE" AS BASIS FOR STOP
Cunninqham v. State,2004WL28O3220 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, 2004, no pet.) (Not designated
for publication).
The defendant nearly hit vehicte of a private security officer-forced him off the road and then
proceeded to weave in his lane. These actions constituted a breach of the peace and posed a
continuing threat to the safety of the community. Additionally, upon being approached after
stopping his vehicle at a drive-through, the defendant exhibited further symptoms of intoxication
and admitted he had consumed several beers. Court held thatthe defendant commifted a breach
of the peace and a citizen's arrest was authorized in this instance.
21