Breaking NewsLaw.com and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Friday Feb. 26 9 PM US EST to Saturday Feb. 27 6 AM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.

 
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:Plano police officer Chad Blumrick testified that he was in the parking lot outside Plano municipal court when an unidentified man pulled into the parking lot, got out of his truck and approached Blumrick. The man told Blumrick that a driver in a white Chevrolet Corsica had, “a minute or two before,” rear-ended him as he was driving north on US 75. The driver of the Corsica did not stop. The man also told Blumrick he suspected the driver of the Corsica was intoxicated and gave Blumrick the first three characters of the license plate. Blumrick left to find the Corsica. Within minutes he saw the car just north of the Plano city limit in Allen. Blumrick followed the car for a short time and saw the driver drifting within his lane. “Based upon the statements of the witness, as well as the driving characteristics observed, [Blumrick] believe[d] there was reasonable suspicion that the [driver of the Corsica] was intoxicated,” and he stopped the car. Blumrick approached the car and asked for Ryan Wilson Purdy’s driver’s license and insurance card. Purdy handed Blumrick his driver’s license and began an attempt to make a call on his cellular telephone. Blumrick asked Purdy to hang up the telephone, but Purdy continued to attempt the telephone call. Blumrick took Purdy’s phone and reminded him about the insurance card. As Purdy looked for his insurance card, Blumrick noticed Purdy’s movements were clumsy and “he appeared to have lost his fine motor skills.” Blumrick also noticed Purdy had a “strong presence of an alcoholic beverage,” slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. Blumrick asked Purdy to exit the car and perform field sobriety tests. Based on his observations, Blumrick determined Purdy was intoxicated, and he arrested Purdy for driving while intoxicated. Blumrick then took Purdy to the Plano City Jail, where Purdy refused to give a breath sample. Blumrick did not notify the city of Allen’s police department that he had taken Purdy into custody. After hearing this and other evidence, the trial court granted Purdy’s motion to suppress. The trial court concluded, among other things, that: 1. Blumrick was outside his jurisdiction and needed probable cause, not just reasonable suspicion, to stop Purdy; and 2. Blumrick’s failure to notify the Allen police that he had taken Purdy into custody warranted suppression of the evidence obtained following the stop. The state appealed, challenging those two conclusions. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 14.03(d), the court stated, provides that a “peace officer who is outside his jurisdiction may arrest, without warrant, a person who commits an offense within the officer’s presence or view, if the offense is a felony, a violation of Chapter 42 or 49, Penal Code, or a breach of the peace.” At the time that Blumrick stopped Purdy, Art. 14.03(g) provided that a peace officer outside his jurisdiction could arrest, without a warrant, a person who committed an offense within the officer’s presence or view, except for a violation of the traffic code. An arrest under Art. 14.03, the court stated, is not limited to a formal, custodial arrest. Thus, the court found that the provisions of Art. 14.03 also applied when an officer temporarily detains a person based on reasonable suspicion. The court noted that in Brother v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals in 2005 determined that a municipal police officer has the authority under either Arts. 14.03(d) or 14.03(g) to stop a driver outside of the city limits if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the driver is driving while intoxicated. Thus, the court found erroneous the trial court’s conclusion that Blumrick needed probable cause to justify the stop. The court noted, however, that Art. 14.03 requires a peace officer making an arrest under subsection (d) to, “as soon as practicable after making the arrest, notify a law enforcement agent having jurisdiction where the arrest was made. The law enforcement agency shall then take custody of the person committing the offense and take the person before a magistrate in compliance with Article 14.06.” Under the Texas exclusionary rule, the court stated, evidence obtained in violation of state or federal law may not be admitted against the accused in a criminal case. But not every statutory violation invokes the exclusionary rule, the court stated. Evidence should only be excluded if the record shows a causal connection between the illegality and the complained-of evidence, the court stated. The notice requirement in �14.03(d), the court stated, is administrative in nature and unrelated to the purpose of the exclusionary rule. Thus, the court concluded that the trial court erred by concluding Blumrick’s failure to comply with Art. 14.03′s notice requirements provided an alternative reason for suppression of the evidence obtained as a result of the stop. OPINION:Wright, J.; Whittington, Wright and FitzGerald, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.