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

defendant from leaving. Officer said he exited his patrol car and either approached defendant or
requested that defendant approach him and asked defendant, who appeared to be confused, had
slurred speech and smelled of alcohol ,if he had been driving. Defendant, who had keys in his
hand, admitted that he had been driving, had been at a bar in Fort Worth, and that he probably
should not have driven home. Court found fhis was a "voluntary encounter" and added that even
if itwas not, thatthe officerwould have had reasonable suspicionto investigate defendantfor DWl.
State v. Woodard, 341 S.W.3d 404 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011).
Responding to a call about a car in a ditch and report that the driver was on foot, the officer on a
hunch that a pedestrian he saw on foot near the scene might be the driver led to him approaching
and engaging the pedestrian in questioning. Based upon that encounter, the officer developed
probable cause to believe the pedestrian/defendant was the operator of the vehicle in the ditch and
to arrest him for DWI. The defense objected that the officer had no legal basis for approaching and
questioning the defendant. The Court held that an officer needs no justification for a consensual
encounter, which triggers no constitutional protections.
State v. Murphv, 2007 WL 2405120 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (not designated for
publication).
Ihis case involved a defendantwho accidentally drove his motorcycle down an embankment in a
park after hours. The trial judge granted the motion fo suppress finding there was no reasonable
susprbrbn or probable cause fo sfop the defendant. The Appellate Court characterized the officer's
initial contact with the defendant when he helped him get his motorcycle up the embankment as
a consensual "encounter." ln overruling the trial judge, the Court found that this encounter
escalated into an investigative detention that was supported by reasonable suspicion that the
d efe nd ant w a s i ntoxi cated.
State v. Brvant, 161 S.W.3d 758 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).
Officer saw defendant turn into the parking lot of a strip shopping center, drive toward the rear of
the buildings, turn around, stop between the buildings, and turn off his headlights. Officer drove
to where defendant was parked, got out of his patrol car, approached the defendant's car, and
knocked on defendant's window. Defendant opened his car door. Officer smelled a strong odor
of alcohol and noted defendant had "something all over the front of him" and that his zipper was
undone. After conducting an investigation, officer arrested defendant for DWl. Trial Court
suppressed the stop finding the officer had no /egal basis to approach vehicle. Coiurt held that
police officer was not required to have reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in
criminal activity to approach defendant's car and knock on his window. Court characterizes
everything up to the point where defendant opened his dqor as an "encoLtnter'which is not a
seizure for 4ffi Amendmenf pu4poses
31_