VIII. Warrantless Arrest DWI Suspect - Offense Not Viewed
A. BASED ON PUBLIC INTOXICATION THEORY
Ogden v. State, No. 03-03-00190-CR, 2004 WL314916 (Tex.App,. Austin 2004) (not designated for publication).
Chilman v. State, 22 S.W.3d 50 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist] 2000, pet. ref’d.).
Mathieu v. State, 992 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.]1999, no pet.).
Porter v. State, 969 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, pet. ref’d).
Jones v. State, 949 S.W.2d 509 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1997, no pet. h.).
Reynolds v. State, 902 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref’d).
Segura v. State, 826 S.W.2d 178 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1992, pet. ref’d).
Carrasco v. State, 712 S.W.2d 120 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986).
Warrick v. State, 634 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982).
Flecher v. State, 298 S.W.2d 581 (Tex.Crim.App. 1957).
In accident case where officer did not see the defendant driving his car, the officer may still make a warrantless arrest of the DWI suspect pursuant to Article 14.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure under the authority of the public intoxication statute.
B. BASED ON "BREACH OF PEACE" THEORY
Gallups v. State, 151 S.W.3d 196 (Tex.Crim.App., December 08, 2004).
Kunkel v. State, 46 S.W.3d 328 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] March 8, 2001, pet.ref’d.).
Lopez v. State, 936 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996, pet. ref’d).
Romo v. State, 577 S.W.2d 251 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979).
C. BASED ON “SUSPICIOUS PLACE” THEORY
1. FRONT YARD
State v. Parson, 988 S.W.2d 264 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.).
Defendant whose vehicle was stopped in front yard = “suspicious place.”
2. PARKING LOT
Cooper v. State, 961 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.App.—Houston 1st Dist.] 1997, pet ref’d).
Officer arrived at scene of accident (in parking lot) and never saw suspect driving his vehicle but determined suspect was involved in accident. Court held detention and arrest were proper holding that it was reasonable for the officer to conclude that the parking lot, in front of a bar, in the wee hours of the morning, with bleeding people walking around wrecked cars and where suspect appeared intoxicated = Suspicious Place.
3. HOSPITAL
Dyar v. State,125 S.W.3d 460 (Tex.Crim.App., April 24, 2003).
Defendant was involved in a one car accident and was transported to a hospital where he was visited by an officer investigating the accident. The officer noted the following: a visible head injury, speech slurred, admission by Defendant that he had been partying with friends, odor of alcoholic beverage, defendant under 21 years of age. Placed Defendant under arrest and after reading him the DIC-24 Defendant agreed to give a blood specimen. Issue on appeal was whether this was a valid warrantless arrest and could a hospital be a “suspicious place?” Court holds that a hospital can be, and was a suspicious place, under the totality of the circumstances relied upon in this case.
4. THE DEFENDANT’S HOME
LeCourias v. State, 341 S.W.3d 483 (Tex.App.—Houston [14 Dist.] 2011).
In holding the warrantless arrest of the defendant was proper, the Court held that the area in front of the home where appellant was arrested was a "suspicious place" because the officer reasonably could believe, based on information provided by citizen that defendant drove while intoxicated, and it was necessary to take prompt action to ascertain appellant's blood-alcohol level.
Gallups v. State, 151 S.W.3d 196 (Tex.Crim.App., December 08, 2004).
Defendant’s warrantless arrest in his home for driving while intoxicated (DWI) was not illegal. The evidence showed the defendant walked to his home after abandoning wrecked truck following accident short distance away. The home under these circumstances constituted a “suspicious place,” when the police officer who responded noticed that defendant was bleeding from mouth. These circumstances also gave police officer reason to believe that defendant had committed “breach of the peace.”
5. ACCIDENT SCENE
State v. Rudd, 255 S.W.3d 293 (Tex.App.—Waco 2008).
Contrary to Trial Court’s findings, the officer did not need to have even reasonable suspicion to talk with defendant at the accident scene and ask questions about the accident. In determining reasonable suspicion, the fact that an officer does not personally observe defendant operating motor vehicle is irrelevant as Article 14.03(a)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides in pertinent part that an officer may arrest a person found in a suspicious place under circumstances reasonably showing that he committed a violation of any of the intoxication offenses. The Court found that the Court’s excluding HGN because the officer did not videotape the testing was within its discretion and upheld that ruling.
D. NEED NOT ACTUALLY CHARGE SUSPECT WITH PUBLIC INTOXICATION
Peddcord v. State, 942 S.W.2d 100 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1997, no pet.).
Warrick v. State, 634 S.W.2d 707,709 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982).
There is no requirement that the officer actually arrest the defendant on public intoxication charge for the State to take advantage of the above mentioned theory.
E. IMPLIED CONSENT LAW STILL APPLIES
Chilman v. State, 22 S.W.3d 50 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist] 2000, pet. ref’d.).
Arnold v. State, 971 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.).
Elliot v. State, 908 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.App.—Austin 1995, pet. ref’d).
While officer did not observe the defendant driving a motor vehicle and made a warrantless arrest for DWI pursuant to Article 14.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and under the authority of the public intoxication statute, the implied consent law was still applicable as it applies to person arrested for any offense arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated and is not limited to arrests for the offense of DWI. [see Section 724.011(a) of the Transportation Code.]
