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

FAILURE TO NOTIFY OFFICERS WITHIN JURISDICTION DOES NOTVIOLATE EXCLUSIONARY RULETurnbow v. State,2003 WL 2006602 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, May 1,2003, pet. ref'd.) (Notdesignated for publication).Bachick v. State, 30 S.W.3d 549 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, pet. ref'd).Officer undertook a valid traffic stop outside his jurisdiction after observing a traffic offense withinhis jurisdiction which ultimately led to the arrest of the defendant for DWl. Officer did not notifyarresting agency within that jurisdiction as required by 1 a.ffi@) . His failure fo do so did not warrantevidence suppressrbn under the exclusionary rule. Court held that the notice reQuirement isunrelated to the purpose of the exclusionary rule.5. CITY VS. COUNTY.WIDE JURISDICTION(a)COUNTY-WIDESawyer v. State, 2008 WL3877701 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008).Doqavv. State, 101 S.W.3d614 (Tex.App.-Houston [1't Dist.] 2003, no pet.).Brother v. State, 166 S.W.3d 255 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1150 (2006).Officer made the traffic stop outside his jurisdiction (city) but within the same countty. The courtfound thatthere was nothing in the legislative history of amendmentsto Tex.Code Crim. Proc.Ann.Art. 1403 (Vernon Supp. 2002) and Tex. Loc. GovT. Code Ann. fi341 .001(e), 341 .021(d(Vernon1999).to indicate that the legislature intended to abrogate the common law rule that the jurisdictionof an officer of a c/ass A general-law municipality was county-wide. The court declined to followrulings to the contrary.(b)oFFtcERW|THTNJURTSD|CT|ON'SPARTICIPATIONArmendariz v. State, 123 S.W.3d 401(Tex.Crim.App.2003).The lower Court of Appeals reversed fhr's case because it found that the stop occurred outside thearresting officer's jurisdiction and was therefore unlawful. ln rejecting this argument, the courtpointed out that the police who were outside their city limits and arguably their jurisdiction wereacting on information provided by a county sheriff (within whose county jurisdiction the stop didoccur) who observed the traffic offense, radioed the information to the police and stayed in radiocontact with the police up to the stop. ln effect, the sheriff's participation in the circumstancessurrounding the defendant's arrest made him just as much a participant in the arrest as if he hadseized the defendant himself.L1