Page 114 - Texas police Association Peace Officer Guide 2017

First, the court (of appeals) did not view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
ruling.

Second, there is a difference between what an officer sees during an ongoing event and what we
see when reviewing a video.

Sometimes it will be obvious that otherwise illegal conduct is justified by surrounding
circumstances. But a defense would matter only if the facts establishing it were so obvious that
an objective officer viewing the situation would be unreasonable in failing to realize that the
person’s conduct was allowed by law. “A determination that reasonable suspicion exists . . . need
not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct.” The reasonable suspicion standard “accepts the
risk that officers may stop innocent people.” The mere possibility that an act is justified will not
negate reasonable suspicion.

The third problem with the court of appeals’s analysis is that it considered the purpose of the law
against driving in the left lane without passing. Trooper Norsworthy was not required to consider
the purpose of the law in deciding whether he believed appellant had violated it. The third
problem with the court of appeals’s analysis is that it considered the purpose of the law against
driving in the left lane without passing. Trooper Norsworthy was not required to consider the
purpose of the law in deciding whether he believed appellant had violated it.

We conclude that the court of appeals erred in holding that Trooper Norsworthy lacked
reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop.

th
Jaganathan v. State, Ct. Crim. App., No. PD-1189-14, Sept. 16 , 2015.
*****************************************************************************

TRAFFIC – BLOOD DRAW FROM DUI SUSPECT – SEARCH & SEIZURE

In STATE V. VILLAREAL, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals case held in November, 2014,
that the implied consent doctrine reflected in Transportation Code Chap. 724 is unconstitutional.
Therefore, before drawing blood from a DWI arrestee, an officer must have a) actual consent; b)
a warrant or c) probable cause plus an exigent circumstance. However , the State’s motion to
reconsider was granted and the opinion was subject to change. So the status of implied consent
for blood draw was up in the air……Until now.

The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed its prior ruling and now denies the State’s motion to
reconsider. Therefore, the above holding will stand.

th
State v. Villareal, Ct. Crim. Appeals, No. PD-0306-14, Dec. 16 , 2015.
SUGGESTION: Follow the above procedure (consent; warrant; or probable cause +
documented exigent circumstance before taking a blood draw) until/unless the holding is
changed and don’t rely on the State statute for conducting blood draws under implied consent.
Consult with your local prosecutor for how they wish to proceed.

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 109 2017 Edition