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

defendant argued that the officer failed to articulate in his testimony that he believed this to be atraffic violation. The Court of Appeals reminds us that the subjective intent of the officer makingthe stop is ignored, and we look solely to whether an objective basis for the sfop exrsfs. As itclearly did in fhis case, the motion fo suppress u/as properly denied.V. ONE OF THREE BRAKE LIGHTS NOT WORKINGStarrin v. State.2005 WL 3343875 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005).Sfop was based on obseruation that one of the three bratke tights on the defendant's vehicle wasout. Defendant argued on appealthat Texas law requires only two functioning brake lights. TheCourt finds that federal standard requires three brake lights for cars of a certain width and takesjudicial notice of the fact that the car in question fits those dimensions and holds the stop waslawful.W.OBJECTIVE FACTS CAN TRUMP OFFICER'S SUBJECTIVE BELIEF ANDSUPPORT STOPKessler v. State, 2010 WL 1137047(Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010) (Not designated for publication).Officer obserued defendant abruptly swerved to the left to avoid a curb, failed to drive the car withina single lane of traffic, and moved "the majority of the vehicle" into a designated left-turn lane whilecontinuing to drive straight. Officer Goodman testified that based on his experience, narrowlyavoiding a curb with such a quick movement and failing to remain in a single lane were signs ofpossib/e intoxication. He noticed the driving occurred shortly after 2:00 a.m., when local barsclosed, which also supported the stop. This was found to provide proper basis for stop eventhough officer's subjective belief that a traffic violation was committed was wrong.Reed v. State, 2010 WL 851424 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010) (Not designated for publication).Even though trial court found the officer's belief that two traffic violations were committed waserroneous, the officer still had reasonable susprcion fo sfop defendant for suspected DWI basedon the other reasons sfafed for the stop; namely, he had suspected that she might be intoxicatedbased on time of day, area of city that she had been coming from, and his experience withintoxicated drivers exhibiting similar characteristics of driving.Huqhes v. State, 2008 WL 4938278 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, pet.ref'd).The officer testified that the traffic sfop in this DWI case yyas based on his mistaken subjectivebelief that defendant had committed a traffic violation (failure to maintain a single lane). lnupholding the stop, the Court holds that the sfop uras supported by the officer's observation andtestimony concerning specific driving behavior that was consistent with DWI. Specifically he notedthe defendant was driving well below the posted speed limit, slower than other vehicles on theroadway, and was on the road around 2:00 a.m. when bars are closing and was having troublemaintaining a single lane of traffic.29