DWI STOP UNJUSTIFIED UNLESS OFFICER CAN EXPLAIN TRAFFIC VIOLATION


 A particular basic question almost always comes up when dealing with a charge of driving while intoxicated: Did the police officer make a lawful traffic stop, or did he improperly stop and detain the driver? The issue has important constitutional implications; the Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches, seizures and detentions. A traffic stop case decided by the Texas Court of Appeals in San Antonio in late June considered the Fourth Amendment and its requirement of "reasonable suspicion" to justify the stop.

In January 2012, an officer with the Kerrville Police Department responded to a call reporting an allegedly intoxicated driver. After spotting the vehicle, the officer followed it for about a minute before initiating a traffic stop. In his report, the officer said this was because the driver failed to signal continuously at least 100 feet before conducting a right-hand turn. The driver was then arrested for the offense of driving while intoxicated.

The Fourth Amendment requires that police searches, seizures and detentions be made pursuant to a warrant or justified by reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion exists if a police officer has "specific, articulable facts" that lead him to reasonably infer that an individual "is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity."

In this case, since the traffic stop was made without a warrant, it had to be supported by reasonable suspicion. The Court of Appeals found that there was nothing to support the officer's unexplained assertion that the driver had violated a traffic law. Because the evidence did not reflect that any "specific, articulable facts" supported the officer's statement, reasonable suspicion did not exist when the officer stopped the driver. Because the traffic stop was made without a warrant or reasonable suspicion, the evidence was properly suppressed by the trial court.

Комментарии

Отправить комментарий

Популярные сообщения из этого блога

CRIMINAL APPEALS COURT REMINDS OFFICERS THAT THEY CANNOT STAY FOR DINNER AFTER ASKED TO LEAVE

Изображение
  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals addressed a situation last week that I have seen come up in Dallas County drug cases more than once: what do the police have to do when somebody lets the police come into their home but then changes their mind? The case went to the Court of Criminal Appeals from the San Antonio Court of Appeals, with the case originating from Kerrville. The defendant was charged with methamphetamine possession. When deputy sheriffs responded to a disturbance call at her apartment, the defendant answered the door, and she appeared intoxicated and distraught. The officers asked to go inside, and the defendant agreed. While waiting on a warrant check, the defendant changed her mind about letting the police in and asked them to leave. The officers ignored her request because they wanted the warrant check to came back before they decided to leave. Lawyer office in Georgia . While waiting, the officers saw evidence of drug use, and the defendant shortly thereafter admit
Далее...

TEXAS LAW BOND CONSIDERATIONS APPLY IN DALLAS COURTS

Изображение
 Issues concerning the defendant's right to a bond and the amount of the bond are often contested after an arrest in Dallas County. Both the federal and state constitutions, and specific Texas law, prohibit excessive bail. A hearing can be held, and if the defendant can appeal if he believes that the bond is set too high in violation of his rights. In setting the amount of bail, a court should consider factors such as: (1) the defendant's work record; (2) the defendant's family and community ties; (3) the defendant's length of residency; (4) the defendant's prior criminal record; (5) the existence of other outstanding bonds, if any; and (6) any aggravating circumstances alleged to have been involved in the charged offense. The primary purpose of an appearance bond is to secure the presence of the accused at trial on the offense charged. Lawyer office in Georgia . The amount of bail must be high enough to give reasonable assurance that the accused will appear as req
Далее...

HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS BLAMES DEFENDANT FOR TEXAS ATTORNEY'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE IMMIGRATION WARNINGS

Изображение
 Because it affects so many resident aliens and other immigrants in the process of becoming citizens in Dallas and other metropolitan parts of Texas, I have been keeping my eye closely on ongoing developments in Texas applying the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky. In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that defense lawyers have a duty under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution to accurately and specifically advise a defendant about deportation and other immigration consequences that will result from a guilty plea. Lawyer office in Georgia . A defendant will plead guilty either under an "open" guilty plea to a judge or jury, where the punishment is left to the judge or jury, or in a situation involving a plea bargain, a more common scenario. The case law says that, whenever a defendant pleads guilty and waives his rights, the defendant has to be informed about immigration consequences in terms that are "succinct, clear and specific.&qu
Далее...