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

exception to the reasonable suspicion requirement. Thereis a/so no mention in the record of theofficer's suspecting the driver was intoxicated.State v. Huddleston, 164 S.W.3d711 (Tex.App.-Austin, 2005).Officer observed suspecf vehicle pull out from the bar's parking lot, proceed to within one-and-ahalf miles of the bar, drift twice to the right side of the roadway and cross over the white shoulderstripe, or fog line. The activated video shows that the right wheels of fhe car crossed the fog linethree more times during the next three minutes. He never saw the vehicle cross the yellow lineseparating the two lanes of traffic. He further testified the movements individually were neitherunlawful nor unsafe, but the combined number did make them unsafe. Sole basr's raised for thesfop was failure to stay within a single marked lane. Only after Motion to Suppress was granteddid State offer other justifications for the sfop: reasonable suspicion of DWI and communitycaretaking, but these were deemed untimely and therefore waived. Therefore, the Court holdingthat the officer had no reasonable susprbion to make fhe sfop was upheld.Bass v. State, 64 S.W.3d 646 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. ref'd).Obseruation that the defendant was sweruing within his lane and crossing over the lane marker didnot provide sufficient basis for a traffic stop. Though the State argues that the officer was stoppingthe defendant based upon a traffic offense, the Court points out that the officer in this case nevertestified that the lane change occurred in an "unsafe manner" nor did the record show how manytimes he had crossed over the lane marker.State v. Cernv, 28 S.W.3d 796 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.).Ihisisa Sfafe's appealof thetrialjudge'sgranting a motion fosuppress. Defendantwasobservedby the officer swerving across the center lane divider and sweruing over the white shoulder linethree times. The Court upheld the suppression based upon the lack of testimony that the lanechange was in an unsafe manner. The Court also noted that it will give deference to a trialjudge'sruling.State v. Arriaoa, 5 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. ref'd).ln a DWI investigatory detention, drifting within the lane does not give rise to reasonable suspicionto pull over. Under the totality of the circumstances, the officer must have more facts which leadhim to intoxication. For example, just pulled out of a bar and the time of night. The officer offeredno evidence to show that he believed the defendanto be intoxicated. Although mere weaving inoneb lane of traffic can justify an investigatory stop when the weaving is erratic, unsafe, or tendsto indicate intoxication or other criminal activity, nothing in the record indicated that thearresting officer believed any of the above to be the case.2L