Page 32 - May June 2020 TPA Journal

Paige pulled Forbes over after Forbes accelerated “[t]here is . . . a presumption of validity with
away from the deputy at a high rate of speed; respect to the affidavit supporting [a] search
Forbes claimed to have “pretty much” been eating warrant.” To overcome this presumption, “the
dinner until 2:00 a.m., after the bars, and long after challenger’s attack must be more than conclusory
most restaurants, had closed. Forbes also refused and must be supported by more than a mere desire
to answer how many drinks he had consumed that to cross-examine.” Forbes therefore is required to
evening, instead holding his arms out as if not only allege that Deputy Paige deliberately, or
surrendering to handcuffs. From these facts a with reckless disregard for the truth, attested to
reasonable officer would believe that Forbes was falsehoods, but Forbes is also required to offer
committing a crime—specifically, driving while proof of deliberate falsities. Even a proven
intoxicated. We, therefore, affirm the district misstatement, if made negligently instead of
court’s grant of summary judgment on this issue. intentionally or recklessly, will not be vitiated if
Deputy Paige likewise did not violate Forbes’s Forbes does not provide evidence “directly
constitutional rights in securing the blood-draw illuminating the state of mind of [Deputy Paige].”
warrant. Forbes alleges that Deputy Paige falsified Aside from the admitted misstatement regarding
the affidavit supporting the warrant, flouting field-sobriety testing, Forbes has not offered any
Forbes’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment evidence to support a finding that Deputy Paige
rights. Forbes first notes that the affidavit claims made false statements in the first instance, let
Deputy Paige conducted field-sobriety tests, alone that he did so intentionally or recklessly.
though he did not. He is correct on this point, and Forbes relies on conclusory allegations and
Deputy Paige admits that this detail was included speculation to support his claims of falsity, to
in the affidavit erroneously. When an affidavit which we give no credence when reviewing a
contains faults, such as this one, we review the summary-judgment order. We therefore review
affidavit as if the faulty statements were removed the corrected affidavit with the enumerated facts
and independently assess whether the corrected above, which, as noted, sufficiently established
attestation still supports the issuance of the probable cause to obtain a blood sample. Because
warrant. Forbes has not raised a genuine dispute of
material fact regarding whether the corrected
So, we now consider Deputy Paige’s affidavit as affidavit was tainted, and the corrected affidavit
though it only contains the following facts: Forbes provided probable cause to issue the blood-draw
(1) was weaving inside his traffic lane; (2) rapidly warrant, summary judgment was proper.
accelerated away from the officer; (3) slurred his
speech; (4) had glossy, red eyes; (5) smelled Although we review the facts in the light most
mildly of alcohol; and (6) refused to provide a favorable to the nonmoving party on summary-
blood or breath sample. These facts, exclusive of judgment review, Forbes was required to provide
Deputy Paige’s misstatements, would support more than conclusory allegations of wrongdoing.
probable cause for a blood-draw warrant. Because he has failed to meet his burden, and no
But that is not the end of our inquiry. Forbes genuine disputes of material fact remain for trial,
argues that Deputy Paige’s affidavit was we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary
falsified—beyond Deputy Paige’s admitted judgment.
misstatements—because Forbes, in his belief, was
not swerving, was not slurring his speech, did not Forbes v. Harris Co., et. al., No. 19-20431, 5th
have glossy or reddened eyes, and did not smell of Circuit, March 04th, 2020.
alcohol.7 Despite Forbes’s claims of dishonesty,

28 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal