X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Department of Public Safety Trooper Angela Fountain stopped Justin Amador for speeding early in the morning of June 3, 2003. Amador conceded that the trooper properly stopped him for speeding but contended that the stop lasted longer than necessary to achieve its purpose. He further contended that the state failed to prove probable cause to support his arrest. At the suppression hearing, Fountain testified about her interaction with Amador immediately following the traffic stop. The trial court viewed portions of the videotape of the stop during the hearing. During their initial conversation, “Fountain observed that Amador’s speech was ‘mumbled.’” The videotape of this portion of the stop reflected that he possibly mumbled only his current address. After asking for Amador’s license and insurance, Fountain noticed that he was “extremely slow to respond” and “fumbled through and passed over his driver’s license on more than one occasion.” How Amador retrieved his license is not evident in the videotape. After determining that Amador had no outstanding warrants, Fountain asked him to step out of his car. Fountain testified that Amador exited more slowly than normal but that he did not stumble, stagger or lean on his car for support. The videotape showed a slight delay between the time that Amador opened his door and exited his car. While issuing Amador a warning for speeding, the trooper smelled alcohol on his breath. The videotape depicted Fountain’s inquiry about whether Amador had anything to drink, and his response, in which he denied drinking any alcohol-containing beverage. Because of Amador’s mumbled speech, his slowness in getting his license and the smell of alcohol on his breath, the trooper decided to perform standardized field sobriety tests. Based on Amador’s performance on the horizontal-gaze-nystagmus, the walk-and-turn and the one-leg-stand, Fountain arrested Amador for driving while intoxicated. Fountain did not further explain how Amador failed to pass his field sobriety tests or explain the clues from the field sobriety testing that caused her to arrest Amador for DWI. The videotape shown to the trial court did not depict the field sobriety tests. Instead, the videotape ended shortly after Amador signed the warning for speeding issued by Fountain. Amador raised two appellate issues. First, he contended that his detention to investigate whether he was driving under the influence of alcohol was illegal. Second, he contended that the state failed to show there was probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. In contending that the scope of his detention exceeded the justification for his initial stop, the court stated that Amador ignored several facts. Fountain noted Amador’s difficulty in complying promptly with her ordinary requests for license and insurance information and his unusually slow movement when exiting his vehicle. Also, the court found that the tape of the stop indicated that Fountain smelled signs of an alcoholic beverage on Amador’s breath after she issued the warning and that she asked Amador how much alcohol he had to drink. Amador denied having had any alcohol, which was inconsistent with Fountain’s impression. Under the circumstances, the court concluded that the detention was not unduly prolonged by Fountain’s decision to conduct field sobriety tests. Thus, the court found that the facts justified further investigation into Amador’s sobriety. In issue two, Amador asserted that the state failed to meet its burden to show probable cause justifying his arrest. The state contended that the record contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. The court examined the reasonableness of Amador’s arrest, and specifically the existence of probable cause, considering all the circumstances. The court noted that at the suppression hearing, the trial court heard the testimony of Fountain and viewed a portion of the videotape. The videotape did not include the field sobriety test. The court stated that it reviewed the pertinent portion of the videotape and found that Amador’s behavior depicted in it to be insufficient to demonstrate probable cause for Amador’s arrest. In addition, the court found that no relevant facts concerning Amador’s performance on the field sobriety tests were elicited at the probable cause hearing. Fountain did not expressly testify that Amador failed the field sobriety test. She merely stated that he she arrested Amador due to his performance on the tests. Thus, the court concluded that the record from Amador’s suppression hearing did not contain sufficient facts to demonstrate probable cause for his warrantless arrest. OPINION:Horton, J.; McKeithen, C.J., and Kreger and Horton, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.