Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...
Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...
Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
F.<br />
G.<br />
H,<br />
L<br />
J.<br />
K.<br />
L.<br />
3. NO RIGHT TO COUNSEL PRIOR TO DECIDING WHETHER<br />
TO GIVE. SAMPLE<br />
68<br />
BREATH AMPULES NEED NOT BE PRESERVED . . .<br />
DIC-23 & DIC-24 WARNINGS<br />
68<br />
69<br />
1. REQUIREMENT THEY BE GIVEN IN WRITING RELATES ONLY<br />
TO ADMISSIBILITY OF REFUSALS<br />
69<br />
2. FAILURE TO GIVE WARNINGS IN WRITING NOT<br />
NECESSARILY FATAL<br />
69<br />
3. WRITTEN WARNINGS NEED NOT BE PROVIDED PRIOR<br />
4.<br />
TO REFUSAL ....<br />
THAT ARREST PRECEDE READING OF DIC-24 = FLEXIBLE<br />
70<br />
70<br />
5. DIC-24 NOTICE IN WRITING REQUIREMENT SATISFIED BY<br />
MAKING WRITTEN COPY "AVAILABLE<br />
70<br />
6. OFFICER WHO READS DIC-24 & REQUESTS SAMPLE NEED<br />
NOT BE ARRESTING OFFICER<br />
70<br />
7. CIVILIAN READING WARNINGS NOT NECESSARILY BASIS FOR<br />
8.<br />
EXCLUSION<br />
DIC-24 - WORDING .10 OR GREATER - IS CORRECT - THOUGH<br />
IT'S NOT TIED TO DRIVING<br />
70<br />
71<br />
9.<br />
10.<br />
ERROR IN SPANISH LANGUAGE VERSION OF THE<br />
WARNING DID NOT MAKE DEFENDANT'S CONSENT INVALID<br />
COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE WARNINGS<br />
71<br />
71<br />
(a) NEED To BE GIVEN<br />
71<br />
11.<br />
(b) DON'T NEED TO BE G|VEN<br />
DIC 23 & DIC 24 DOCUMENTS ARE NOT HEARSAY<br />
72<br />
72<br />
12.<br />
13.<br />
FAILURE TO READ'UNDER 21" PORTION OF DIC 24<br />
NOT PRECLUDE ADMISSION OF BT<br />
URINE SAMPLE<br />
72<br />
73<br />
(a) MAYBE REQUESTED. . . .<br />
73<br />
(b) rs ADMTSSTBLE wrTHour EXPLAINING RIGHT TO REFUSE 73<br />
NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW 210 LITERS OF BREATH<br />
BREATH TEST NOT COERCED .<br />
73<br />
73<br />
1. EXTMWARNING REFERRED TO CONSEQUENCES OF<br />
PASSING NOT REFUSING .<br />
73<br />
2. NO EVIDENCE THAT ADDITIONAL WARNING ACTUALLY<br />
COERCED DEFENDANT ..........<br />
75<br />
3.<br />
4.<br />
NO EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT RELIED UPON EXTRA WARNING . . . .<br />
DEFENDANT GAVE SAMPLE, CONSEQUENCES UNDERSTATED . . . . . . .<br />
75<br />
75<br />
5. AT MTS IT IS THE DEFENDANT'S BURDEN TO SHOW CONSENT<br />
TO GIVE BT WAS NOT VOLUNTARY<br />
6. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN<br />
OFFICER STATEMENT AND CONSENT<br />
BREATH TEST FOUND TO BE COERCED<br />
BREATH TEST REFUSAL EVIDENCE<br />
L AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT<br />
2. NO VIOLATION OF sTH AMENDMENT<br />
75<br />
76<br />
76<br />
77<br />
77<br />
77<br />
3. REASON FOR REFUSAL AND CONDITION OF INSTRUMENT<br />
IRRELEVANT ....<br />
4. REFUSAL BASED ON INTOXICATION IS STILL A "REFUSAL" . . . .<br />
5. INTOXICATION MAY BE PRESUMED FROM BTR . .<br />
6. FAILURE TO FOLLOW BREATH TEST INSTRUCTIONS = REFUSAL . . . . .<br />
LATE BREATH TEST - CAN BE SUFFICIENT .<br />
1. LATE TEST NOT CONCLUSIVE BUT IS PROBATIVE<br />
AFTER 1 HOUR & 20 MINUTES<br />
77<br />
78<br />
78<br />
78<br />
78<br />
78<br />
78<br />
VA