Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...
Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...
Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
P. "FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY''- SUFFICIENT DETAIL?<br />
1. NO<br />
Ford v. State,158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).<br />
<strong>Texas</strong> State Trooper Andrew Peavy pulled Matthew Ford's vehicle over for following another car<br />
too closely on Highway 290 outside of Houston in violation of <strong>Texas</strong> Transportation Code S<br />
545.062(al which providesthat an operator shall, if following another vehicle, maintain an assured<br />
clear distance between the two vehicles so that, considering the speed of the vehicles, traffic, and<br />
the conditions of the highway, the operator can safely stop without colliding with the preceding<br />
vehicle or veering into another vehicle, object, or person on or near the highway. There were no<br />
details given beyond the statement that the officer thought the defendant was traveling "too<br />
closely." Court of Appeals held stop was proper and the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed<br />
holding that the officer's "conclusory statement" was unsupported by articulable facts. "The State<br />
failed to elicit any testimony pertinent to what facts would allow Peavy to objectively determine Ford<br />
was violating a traffic law in support of his judgment."<br />
2.<br />
Stoker v. State, 170 S.W.3d 807 (Tex.App.-Tyler, 2005, no pet.).<br />
Because police officer testified that he saw defendant's vehicle<br />
'\ight up on another" vehicle while<br />
traveling at a high rate of speed, such that defendant would not have been able to safely sfop his<br />
vehicle, officer gave specific, articulable facts to support the reasonable suspicion that defendant<br />
had committed a traffic violation so as to justify stop. V.T.C.A., Transportation Code 5545.062.<br />
Wallace v. State. 2005 WL 3465515 (Tex.App.-Texarkana Dec 20, 2005, pdr dismissed) (Not<br />
designated for publication).<br />
Testimony that when the defendant changed lanes, he pulled his vehicle in front of another car and<br />
caused the driver of this second car to have to apply the brakes because he was too close coupled<br />
with officer testimony that the two vehicles were "[p]robably a car length or /ess" apart when<br />
defendant made the lane change presented clear, concrete facts from which the trial court could<br />
determine whether the officer did indeed have "specific, articulable facts," which when viewed<br />
under the totality of the circumstances could lead the officer to reasonably conclude Wallace had<br />
violated a traffic law. The Court distinguished fhese facts from fhose in the Ford case.<br />
29