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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

VI.BASIS FOR VEHICLE STOPA. LEGAL STANDARDStone v. State, 685 S.W.2d 791 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1985), aff'd 703 S.W.2d 652(Tex.Crim.App. 1986).Need only be reasonable suspicion to justify stop. (Definition of that standard included in thisopinion).B. TICKETS THAT PROVIDED BASIS FOR STOP INADMISSIBLENevarez v. State, 671 S.W.2d 90 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1984, no pet.).Error to allow Sfafe fo elicit testimony that traffic tickets were issued in connection with DWI stop.C. INFORMATION FROM CITIZEN/POLICE RADIO/ANONYMOUS CALL1. SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR STOPVillareal v. State, 2008 WL 4367616 (Tex.App.-Houston [1't Dist] 2008, no pet.).Officer received call from dispatch that citizen was following a possr'ble drunk driver and hadobserved the defendant's vehicle pull into a parking lot where she uras approached andinvestigated by the officer. The officer had dispatcher callthe citizen informant and have him meetthe officer at the parking lot where he repeated the details of the bad driving he had obserued. lnupholding the stop, the Court focused on the fact that the observations reported by the informantof the defendant's driving behavior constituted criminal activity, specifically, DWI. Since theinformant chose to follow defendant's vehicle after reporting the conduct, he was not "truly ananonymous informer." In addition the officer corroborated Garcia's identification details when helocated defendant's car in the parking lot.Hawes v. State, 125 S.W.3d 535 (Tex.App.-Houston [1't Dist.], 2002, no pet.).Police received call from tow truck driver reporting reckless driving and that he was following thevehicle. Officer arrived and pulled defendant over based on information received and withoutseeing any traffic violations. The truck driver on seeing defendant pulled over continued withoutstopping. ln holding the stop was valid, the Court found that by presenting his information to thepolice via his busrness's dispatcher and following the suspect in his own readily traceable vehicle,the truck driver placed himself in a position where he could be held accountable for his interuention.These indicia of reliability, when combined with the officer's corroboration of the identificationdetails, provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the investigative stop.
State v. Fudqe, 42 S.W.3d 226 (Tex.App.-Austin, 2001, no pet.).Officer's sole basis for the sfop was the details of bad driving provided to him by a cab driver ina face to face encounter. Court held that that was a sufficient basrs for the stop of the defendant.Court referred and distinguished these factsfrom Florida v. J.L.. 529 U.S. 266, 12A S.Ct.1375, 146L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).State v. Nelson, 228 S.W.3d 899 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, no pet.).Winborn v. State , 2007 WL 1711791(Tex.App.-Austin 2007, pdr ref'd).Brother v. State, 166 S.W.3d 255 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005), cert. denied,546 U.S. 1150 (2006).Pipkin v. State, 114 S.W.3d 649 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.)State v. Stolte, 991 S.W.2d 336 (Tex.App.-:Fort Worth 1999, no pet.).State v. Sailo, 910 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995, pet. ref'd).State v. Adkins, 829 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref'd).Ferouson v. State, 573 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).Albert v. State, 659 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1983, pet. ref'd).lnformation from a concerned citizen may provide sufficient basrs for officer to make investigativesfop.2. IDENTIFIED CITIZEN-CREDIBLE AND RELIABLEGabrish v. State, 2009 WL 2605899 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2009) (Not designated forpublication).Civilians observed an apparently drunk defendant get in his car after urinating outside and driveaway. One of them called 911 and they all pointed out the car to the officer who stopped thedefendant based on their description of multiple indicators of intoxication. ln upholding the stop,the Court focused on the fact that the civilian informants placed themselves in a position wherethey could have been easily identified and held responsible and that the information they providedto the officer was sufficiently reliable to support the temporary detention.Hime v. State, 998 S.W. 2d 893 (Tex.App.-Houston, [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd).Citizen stopped at Burger Kng to call police after observing suspecf swerving towards other carsas rt passed. Citizen gave her name and noted that suspect had stopped at BK, too. Officerarrived a minute later just as suspecf was leaving BK and stopped suspecf. Court held sufficientbasis for stop noting that an (identified) citizen who calls in to report criminalacfs is inherentlycredible and reliable.See also, Vanderhorst v. State, 52 S.W.3d 237 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2001).Mitchellv. State, 187 S.W.3d 113 (Tex.App. -Waco 2006, pet. ref'd).l_0
Page 1 and 2: Driving While IntoxicatedCase Law U
Page 3 and 4: 3. TOMAKEARRESTFORDWI .......164. F
Page 5 and 6: xt.xil.xilt.c.D.E.F.G.SMELL & TASTE
Page 7 and 8: H.t.J.K.L.M.N.o.P.o.R.S.T.U.10. COM
Page 9 and 10: G.H.t.J.K.L.M.N.o.5. NOTNECESSARYTO
Page 11 and 12: J.K.L.M.N.o.P.o.R.S.T.U.V.W.X.6. JU
Page 13 and 14: INhEYIt! 9Ln144TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page 15 and 16: fhe basis of a finding that appella
Page 17 and 18: case a/so reaffirms that a juror ma
Page 19 and 20: IV.TRAFFIC VIOLATIONSYou will often
Page 21: Eliqibilitv for Occupational Driver
Page 25 and 26: 6. ANONYMOUS TIP FROM TRUCK DRIVERG
Page 27 and 28: 1. APPLIESChilman v. State, 22 S.W.
Page 29 and 30: (b)STOPS MADE AFTER 9-01-05 = YESAr
Page 31 and 32: (c)HOT PURSUITYeaqer v. State, 104
Page 33 and 34: Curtis v. State, 209 S.W.3d 688, (T
Page 35 and 36: State v. Tarvin ,972 S.W .2d 910 (T
Page 37 and 38: was speeding. There was no evidence
Page 39 and 40: defendant made the lane change pres
Page 41 and 42: 2. NOT AN ENCOUNTERStatev. Carter,
Page 43 and 44: Sinsleton v. State.91 S.W.3d 342 (T
Page 45 and 46: 4. THE DEFENDANT'S HOMEGallups v. S
Page 47 and 48: Kalisz v. State, 32 S.W.3d718 (Tex.
Page 49 and 50: 6. FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS ARE NON-TES
Page 51 and 52: 2. POST.ARRESTMever v. State, 78 S.
Page 53 and 54: them. The Court found there was no
Page 55 and 56: alcoholic beer. Test was properly d
Page 57 and 58: C. EMPLOYMENT AND DISCIPLINARY HIST
Page 59 and 60: Hernandez v. State, 107 S.W.3d 41 (
Page 61 and 62: 2. INADMISSIBLE,'CUSTODIAL INTERROG
Page 63 and 64: XV.FIELD SOBRIEry TESTSA. HORIZONTA
Page 65 and 66: 6. VERTICAL GFZE NYSTAGMUS/RESTING
Page 67 and 68: C. WALK AND TURN = LAY WITNESS TEST
Page 69 and 70: XVI. SPECIFIC ELEMENTSA. PUBLIC ROA
Page 71 and 72: C. PROOF OF "MOTOR VEHICLE"Turner v
Page 73 and 74:
alcoholconcentrationwasworking prop
Page 75 and 76:
e some showing of a causal connecti
Page 77 and 78:
Martin v. Department of Public Safe
Page 79 and 80:
t.BREATH TEST NOT COERCED1. EXTRAWA
Page 81 and 82:
that because fhe statutory warning
Page 83 and 84:
4. REFUSAL BASED ON INTOXICATION IS
Page 85 and 86:
2. NO NEEDTO REPEATON 2NDTESTState
Page 87 and 88:
of Criminal Appeals remands back to
Page 89 and 90:
Garcia v. State, 112 S.W.3d 839 (Te
Page 91 and 92:
4. EXTRAPOLATION TESTIMONY IS ADMIS
Page 93 and 94:
Bhakta v. State, 124 S.W.3d 738 (Te
Page 95 and 96:
B. ARREST AT THE HOSPITAL1. RESTRAI
Page 97 and 98:
3. USE OF ALCOHOL SWAB BEFORE BLOOD
Page 99 and 100:
2. OBTAINING RECORDS BY SUBPOENATap
Page 101 and 102:
he and other doctors routinely reli
Page 103 and 104:
appeal is whether the implied conse
Page 105 and 106:
XIX. EXPER TESTIMONYA. STATE EXPERT
Page 107 and 108:
Moncivais v. State , 20O2WL 1445200
Page 109 and 110:
McKinnon v. State, 709 S.W.2d 805 (
Page 111 and 112:
B. ALTERNATIVE CAUSATION = NO CHARG
Page 113 and 114:
jury to convict if they found the d
Page 115 and 116:
Davis v. State, 964 S.W.2d 352 (Tex
Page 117 and 118:
M. NO MEDICAL EXCUSE INSTRUCTIONBur
Page 119 and 120:
Beaslev. State, 810 S.W.2d 838, (Te
Page 121 and 122:
could be allowed to comment on the
Page 123 and 124:
2. DPS RECORDS ALONE WITHOUT J & S
Page 125 and 126:
.2DWl PRTORS ARE ADMTSSTBLE rN GU|L
Page 127 and 128:
concerning the range of punishmentf
Page 129 and 130:
J. OPEN CONTAINER1. SUFFICIENT PROO
Page 131 and 132:
The problem here was not with the f
Page 133 and 134:
3. THE 10 YEAR RULE FOR OFFENSES FR
Page 135 and 136:
Procedure that right applies only t
Page 137 and 138:
Hollin v. State,227 S.W.3d 117 (Tex
Page 139 and 140:
D. ALR HEARINGS: NO COLLATERAL ESTO
Page 141 and 142:
4. DWI & CHILD ENDANGERMENTBaqbv v.
Page 143 and 144:
K. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY WHERE FAULTY
Page 145 and 146:
Watson v. State, 2008 WL 5401497 (T
Page 147 and 148:
Peters v. Texas Department of Publi
Page 149 and 150:
3)4)evidence showed car had been at
Page 151 and 152:
Revnolds v. State,744S.W.2d 156 (Te
Page 153 and 154:
McCaffertv v. State, 748 S.W.2d 489
Page 155 and 156:
7)8)e)1a)11)Operate no motor vehicl
Page 157 and 158:
INDEX10 YEAR RULE 120ALRHEARTNGS ..
Page 159 and 160:
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESAbbrinq v. Stat
Page 161 and 162:
Block v. State, 1997 WL 530767 (Tex
Page 163 and 164:
Davis v. State, 964 S.W.2d 352 (Tex
Page 165 and 166:
Farmer v. State,2006 WL 3844169 (Te
Page 167 and 168:
Gomez v. State, 35 S.W.3d 746 (Tex.
Page 169 and 170:
Howardv.State,744S.W.2d640(Tex.App.
Page 171 and 172:
Leos v. State, 883 S.W.2d 209 (Tex.
Page 173 and 174:
Mulderv. State,707 S.W.2d 908 (Tex.
Page 175 and 176:
Quinnev. State, 99 S.W.3d 853 (Tex.
Page 177 and 178:
Smithv. State,65S.W.3d332 (Tex.App.
Page 179 and 180:
State v. Melendes, 877 S.W.2d 502 (
Page 181 and 182:
TexasDept. APublicSafetvv.Moore.175
Page 183:
Yokomv.State,2004WL742888(Tex.App.-
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?