 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Baird v. State2/12/1997
96 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see Arnold v. State, 873 S.W.2d 27, 34 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 103 (1994); Johnson, 803 S.W.2d.2d at 287. We should uphold the decision of the trial court unless it falls outside the "zone of reasonable disagreement." Dubose, 915 S.W.2d at 496-97.
The trial judge in this case refused to suppress evidence based on Baird's claims that his arrest was without a warrant and without probable cause. We cannot agree that the trial court abused its discretion in reaching this decision. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure permits a peace officer to make a warrantless arrest "for any offense committed in his presence or within his view." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 14.01(b) (Vernon 1994). An officer may rely in part on information supplied by others, including lay witnesses, in forming probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed in his presence or view. Astran v. State, 799 S.W.2d 761, 764 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The existence of probable cause is determined from the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case. Torres v. State, 868 S.W.2d 798, 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The State argues that Glenn had probable cause under the facts and circumstances of the instant case to arrest Baird for public intoxication. We agree, and note that an arrest for the offense of public intoxication is sufficient to sustain an arrest in a prosecution for DWI. See Fletcher v. State, 298 S.W.2d 581, 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957); Lopez v. State, No. 4-95-732-CR, 1996 WL 717124, at *3 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.); Segura v. State, 826 S.W.2d 178, 185 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1992, pet. ref'd); Pringle v. State, 732 S.W.2d 363, 368 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd).
A person commits the offense of public intoxication "if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another." Tex. Penal Code Ann. 49.02(a) (Vernon 1994). In this case, Glenn personally observed Baird's intoxicated condition in a public place on the night in question. Further, Glenn testified that he concluded Baird was a danger to himself and others. Glenn's conclusion in this regard was supported by his personal observations, comments from witnesses, and even a statement made by Baird himself that led Glenn to believe that Baird had been involved in an automobile accident and had fled the scene. An officer may conclude that an arrestee is a danger to himself or others if he has some reason to believe that the arrestee "may" endanger himself or others, not only when there is proof of immediate danger. Id.; see Dickey v. State, 552 S.W.2d 467, 468 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). It is reasonable to assume that an intoxicated person who has just fled the scene of an accident may pose a danger to himself and others. Baird's warrantless arrest was valid because he committed the offense of public intoxication within Glenn's presence or view.
Baird nevertheless argues that the central issue in this case is the precise time at which he was placed under arrest. He contends that he was placed under arrest when Glenn transported him from the strip center to the scene of the accident, and that Glenn did not have probable cause to arrest him without a warrant at this time. We need not decide the precise moment at which Baird was arrested, however, because sufficient facts were available to Glenn even before he transported Baird to the accident scene upon which he could base a finding of probable cause. Glenn had already observed Baird and his condition prior to this time, Baird himself had stated that he was involved in an accident, and Snyder had informed Glenn he thought Baird was driving the truck and involved in the acc
Page 1 2 3 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|