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

Kruq v. State,86 S.W.3d764 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2002}Defendant failed to signal his turn off of a public roadway into a private driveway. Court held thatthe failure to signal was a traffic violation and disagrees with Trahan and Zeno.2.NOState v. Zeno, 44 S.W.3d 709 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2001, pet. ref'd).Trahan v. State, 16 S.W.3d 146 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000, no pet.).Defendant was stopped for failing to signal when he exited the freeway. Court held that 45.104did not apply as there was no evidence that he made a turn or changed lanes to exit the freeway./f bases the finding that there was no "turn'on its belief that the language only applies to ninetydegree turns.P. "FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY''- SUFFICIENT DETAIL?Ford v. State,158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex.Crim.App., March 9, 2005).Iexas State Trooper Andrew Peavy pulled Matthew Ford's vehicle over for following another cartoo closely on Highway 290 outside of Houston in violation of Texas Transporlation Code 6545.062h1 which providesthat an operator shall, if following another vehicle, maintain an assuredclear distance between the two vehicles so that, considering the speed of the vehicles, traffic, andthe conditions of the highway, the operator can safely stop without colliding with the precedingvehicle or veering into another vehicle, object, or person on or near the highway. There were nodetails given beyond the statement that the officer thought the defendant was traveling 'tooclosely." Court of Appeals held stop was proper and the Court of Criminal Appeals reversedholding that the officer's "conclusory statement" was unsupported by articulable facfs. "Ihe Sfafefailed to elicit any testimony pertinent to what facts would allow Peavy to objectively determine Fordwas violating a traffic law in support of his judgment."But See:Stoker v. State, 170 S.W.3d 807 (Tex.App.-Tyler, 2005, no pet.).Because police officer testified that he saw defendant's vehicle "right up on another" vehicle whiletraveling at a high rate of speed, such that defendant would not have been able to safely sfop hr'svehicle, officer gave specific, articulable facts to support the reasonable suspicion that defendanthad committed a traffic violation so as to justify stop. V.T.C.A., Transportation Code 5545.062.Walface v. State. 2005 WL 3465515 (Tex.App.-Texarkana Dec 20,20Q5, pdr dismissed) (Notdesignated for publication).Testimony that when the defendant changed lanes, he pulled his vehicle in front of another car andcaused the driver of fhrs second car to have to apply the brakes because he was foo c/ose coupledwith officer testimony that the two vehicles were "[p]robably a car length or /ess" apart when25