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

went to search defendant's car. As defendant sat in the patrol unit with doors c/osed and windows
shut, he made oral statements that were recorded by the videotaping equipment. Details of the
comments were not disclosed other than being characterized in the brief as an "acrimonious tirade
profanely blaming his wife and the two officers for his plight." Court holds there was no reasonable
expectation of privacy in the patrol car and holds statement to be admissible.
H. DEFENSE RIGHT TO VIEW TAPE BEFORE TRIAL
Durhan v. State, 710 S.W.2d 176 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1986, no pet.).
Defendant and/or attorney have right to view DWI video prior to trial. Failure to view won't prevent
tape's being admifted into evidence.
Quinones v. State, 592 S.W.2d 933 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980), cert. denied, 101 S. Ct. 256. (1980).
DWI videotapes are discoverable.
I. TAPE MADE IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE
Leal v. State, 7 82 S.W .2d 844 (Tex.Crim.App. 1 989).
When fape is in foreign language, a translation by a sworn interpreter rs necessary.
J. PROVIDING DEFENDANT WITH COPY OF DWI VIDEOTAPE
1. DEFENDANT NEED ONLY BE GIVEN
*ACCESS"
Lane v. State, 933 S.W.2d 504 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996).
Held Rule 38.22 that says Sfafe musf provide a true and correct copy of tape to the defense before
the 20th day before the date of the proceeding rs safisfred if the tape is "made avaikh!9" to the
defense.
2. ACCESS TO THE TAPE IS NOT REQUIRED UNLESS THERE IS
..CUSTODIAL
I NTERROGATION''
Mann v. State, 13 S.W.3d 89 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, Affirmed other grounds 58 S.W.3d 132
[ex.Crim.App. 2001]).
Where there were no oralsfafemenfs resulting from custodial interrogation offered on the DWI
videotapes, the rule that said fapes must be provided to defense no later than the 2tr day before
the trial does not apply.
44