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

Rasan v. State,642S.W.2d 489 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982).
Defendant stopped for weaving. Officer suspected intoxicated. Asked to sit on police car for further
questioning. Officer tape recorded statements.
B.
''MIRANDA
WARNINGS' . RECITATION MUST BE ACCURATE
State v. Subke, 918 S.W.2d 11 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995 pet. ref'd).
When giving Miranda warning, the wording must be followed precisely. ln this case the officer
warning that any statement could be used against fhe suspect "at trial' instead of "in court"
rendered sfafemenfs made inadmissible
C. ACCIDENT REPORTS STATUTE HAS NO EFFECT ON ADMISSIBILITY OF
DRIVER'S ORAL STATEMENTS
State v. Revna, 89 S.W.3d 128 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.).
State v. Stevenson, 958 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997).
Spradlinq v. State, 628 S.W.2d 123 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1981, pet. refd).
Sfafufe making accident reports privileged and confidentiat did not prevent potice officer ftom
testifying to oral statements given by defendant concerning said accident.
D. DOES HANDCUFFING DEFENDANT PLACE HIM IN "CUSTODY'' FOR MIRANDA
PURPOSES?
1. NO
Rhodes v. State, 945 S.W.2d 115 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997).
Based finding of no custody on rfs determination of whether the defendant was subjected to
treatment that resulted in his being in custody for practical purposes and whether a reasonable
person in those circumstances would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate
interrogation and leave.
2. YES
Camobell v. State, 325 S.W.3d 222 (Tex.App. -Fort Worth, 2010).
Sfop of defendant constituted an arrest after defendant was placed in handcuffs, and thus
defendant's subseguent statements were subject to warning requirements of Miranda and State
sfafuteforpurposesof laterdrivingwhileintoxicated(DWl)prosecution. Policeofficerwhostopped
defendant did not testify that he handcuffed defendant for officer safety purposes, to continue
investigation, or to maintain fhe sfafus quo; and after handcuffing defendant, officer asked
55