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

B. BASED ON'BREACH OF PEACE'THEORY
Gallups v. State, 151 S.W.3d 196 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004).
Kunkel v. State, 46 S.W.3d 328 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] March 8,2001, pet.ref'd).
Lopez v. State, 936 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, pet. ref'd).
Romo v. State,577 S.W.2d 251(Tex.Crim.App. 1979).
C. BASED ON "SUSPICIOUS PLACE'' THEORY
1. FRONTYARD
State v. Parson,988 S.W.2d264 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.).
Defendant whose vehicle was sfopped in front yard = Susprbious place."
2. PARKING LOT
Cooper v. State, 961 S.W.2 d 229 (Tex.App.-Houston 1't Dist.l 1997 , pet ref'd).
Officer arrived at scene of accident (in parking lot) and never saw suspect driving his vehicle but
determined suspecf wa s involved in accident. Court held detention and arrest were proper holding
that it was reasonable for the officer to conclude that the parking lot, in front of a bar, in the wee
hours of the morning, with bleeding people walking around wrecked cars and where suspecf
appeared intoxicated = Susprbious Place.
3. HOSPITAL
Dyar v. State,125 S.W.3d 460 (Tex.Crim.App., April 24,2003).
Defendant was involved in a one car accident and was transported to a hospital where he was
visited by an officer investigating the accident. The officer noted the following: a visible head iniury,
speech slurred, admission by Defendant that he had been partying with friends, odor of alcoholic
beverage, defendant under 21 years of age. Placed Defendant under arrest and after reading him
the DIC-24 Defendant agreed to give a blood specimen. /ssue on appeal was whether this was
avalid warrantless arrest and could a hospital be a "suspicious place?" Court holdsthat a hospital
can be, and was a suspicious place, underthe totality of the circumstances relied upon in fhis case.
4. THE DEFENDANT'S HOME
LeCourias v. State, 341 S.W.3d 483 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist.] 2011).
In holding the warrantless arrest of the defendant was proper, the Court held that the area in front
of the home where appellant was arrested was a "suspicious place" because the officer reasonably
could believe ,based on information provided by citizen that defendant drove while intoxicated, and
it was necessary to take prompt action to ascertain appellant's blood-alcohol level.
5t