Page 38 - TPA Jourtnal September October 2023

insufficient to establish a temporal link between tookaction to affect the functioning of his vehicle
appellee’s intoxication and her driving.” in a manner that would enable the vehicle’s
use.”
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to
suppress using a bifurcated standard for an abuse of The only issue in this case is whether Officer
discretion. We defer to a trial court’s findings of Brasuell had probable cause to
fact that are supported by the record. We review believe that Appellee had recently operated a
de novo legal questions and mixed questions that vehicle. Appellee argues that the evidence was
do not turn on credibility and demeanor, such as insufficient for multiple reasons. First, she agrees
facts of a case that would establish probable cause. with the court of appeals that there
The evidence and all reasonable inferences are is no evidence of a temporal link between
viewed in the light most favorable to the trial Appellee’s operation of her vehicle and her
court’s ruling, and the trial court’s ruling must be intoxication, and she contends that the State and
upheld if it is reasonably supported by the record dissent are wrong to conclude otherwise
and is correct under a theory of law applicable to because they have misinterpreted the record.
the case. Second, Appellee argues that the court of
appeals correctly concluded Allocca controlled.
“A peace officer may arrest an offender without a Third, she argues the trial court’s
warrant for any offense committed in his presence findings of fact and conclusions of law are
or within his view.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. supported by the record, but that the State asks
14.01(b). Warrantless arrests under Article 14.01(b) this Court to ignore them.
must be supported by probable cause. See Appellee contends her statements about where she
Beverly v. State, 792 S.W.2d 103, 104 (Tex. Crim. was coming from and where she was headed were
App. 1990). Probable cause exists under Article not admissions that she had recently operated her
14.01(b) if, when the arrest is made, the facts, vehicle. According to Appellee, because there is no
circumstances, and reasonably trustworthy evidence showing when she arrived in her
information known to the arresting officer, are vehicle, she could have driven to the school at any
sufficient for a prudent person to conclude that an time before she was found, including
individual committed or was committing a criminal before she became intoxicated. We disagree and
offense. Probable cause is a commonsense, think that her statements could be interpreted by a
nontechnical concept that deals with “‘the factual prudent person as admissions, especially when
and practical considerations of everyday life on considered in light of the other evidence. The video
which reasonable and prudent men, not legal admitted into evidence showed Officer Brasuell
technicians, act.’” “Probable cause deals with and Appellee interacting, and she never
probabilities; it requires more than mere suspicion, indicated that she arrived in her vehicle hours or
but far less evidence than that needed to support a even a day before she was approached.
conviction or even that needed to support a finding Further, her vehicle was fourth or fifth in a bumper-
by a preponderance of the evidence.” Specific and to-bumper line of vehicles that had
articulable facts are required. A mere suspicion or begun to form about 15 to 30 minutes before
hunch is insufficient. To determine if probable Appellee was found. If Appellee’s version
cause existed, we consider the totality of the of events were true, it could mean that the first
circumstances. three or four drivers to arrive after Appellee saw her
sitting in the driver’s seat of her vehicle and
A person is guilty of DWI if he operates a motor nonetheless drove past her and reversed until they
vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. TEX.
PENAL CODE § 49.04. To determine if a person were ahead of her in the bumper-to-bumper line of
traffic. While that is possible, we do not look to
operated a motor vehicle, “the totality of the
circumstances must demonstrate that the defendant possible innocent explanations when determining

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