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

Gallups v. State, 151 S.W.3d 196 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004).
Defendant's warrantless arresf in his home for driving while intoxicated (DWI) was not illegal. The
evidence showed the defendant walked to his home after abandaning wrecked truck following
accident short distance away. The home under fhese circumstances consfffuted a "susptbious
place," when the police officer who responded noticed that defendant was bleeding from mouth.
Ihese circumstances a/so gave police officer reason to believe that defendant had committed
"breach of the peace."
5. ACCIDENT SCENE
State v. Rudd. 255 S.W.3d 293 (Tex.App,-Waco 2008, pet. ref'd).
Contrary to Trial Court's findings, the officer did not need to have even reasonable suspicion to talk
with defendant at the accident scene and ask guesfions about the accident. ln determining
reasonable suspicion, the fact that an officer does not personally obserue defendant operating
motor vehicle is irrelevant as Article 14.03h)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedurg provides in
pertinent partthat an officer may arrest a person found in a suspicious place under circumsfances
reasonably showing that he committed a violation of any of the intoxication offenses. The Court
found that the Court's excluding HGN because fhe officer did not videotape the testing was within
its discretion and upheld that ruling.
D. NEED NOT ACTUALLY CHARGE SUSPECT WITH PUBLIC INTOXICATION
Peddcord v. State,942S.W.2d 100 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1997, no pet.).
Warrick v. State, 634 S.W.2d707,709 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982).
There is no requirement that the officer actuatly arrest the defendant on public intoxication charge
for the Sfafe fo take advantage of the above mentioned theory.
E. IMPLIED CONSENT LAW STILL APPLIES
Chilman v. State, 22 S.W.3d 50 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist] 2000, pet. ref'd.).
Arnold v. State, 971 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.).
Elliot v. State, 908 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd).
While officer did not obserue the defendant driving a'motor vehicle and made a warrantless arresf
for DWI pursuant to Articte 14.01 of the lexas Code of Criminal Procedure and under the authority
of the public intoxication statute, the implied consent law was still applicable as it applies to person
arrested for anv offense arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated and is nof
limited fo arresfs for the offense of DWl. /see Secfio n 724.01 1 (a) of the Transportation Code.l
38