Texas DWI Defense and Traffic Stop Lawyers
No two DWI defenses are alike. Each one must be tailored to the client's specific fact situation. However, most DWI prosecutions track the same pattern, mainly because the arresting cop is trained to conduct the same investigation each time. The following investigative steps are typical: the cop stops a driver for some traffic violation, identifies that he has been drinking, gives field sobriety tests and then offers a chemical test of some sort to verify the alcohol content in the driver's body. Each step in the investigation can be successfully attacked.
THE TRAFFIC STOP
It is unconstitutional for an officer to stop a vehicle without cause. Even in those instances where the police have set up road check points, they must have a significant police reason and follow a set pattern in order to avoid running afoul of the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. If the stop is without cause, all the evidence that is accumulated thereafter to prove a person was Driving While Intoxicated will be suppressed.
Typically, an officer will stop because he claims to have witnessed a traffic violation; speeding, for example. Even in the situation where a DWI Task force officer is looking for a reason to stop, having as his only purpose the investigation of a person for the crime of Driving While Intoxicated, the stop will be upheld if the driver legitimately violated a traffic law. Intent for the stop is irrelevant as long as the officer had cause to do so.
Despite the boisterous claims made by so many defense attorneys, it is extremely rare in practice for an attorney to convince a judge that a stop was without cause, when the only evidence presented at the suppression hearing is that the cop and the client disagree about whether a traffic violation in fact occurred. Usually, there needs to be more, and this is where hiring the right lawyer makes all the difference.
Here's an example from a case we handled: The officer alleged that he stopped our client because he observed him driving over the center line a couple times. In this case, the officer testified that the traffic violation he observed was failure to maintain a single lane of traffic. There is in fact a requirement in Texas Transportation Code § 545.060 that requires a driver to stay within his lane. If our client had testified that he did not run over the line, and nothing more was presented, it would have been highly unlikely that the judge would have suppressed.
Fortunately, our client didn't need to testify to get his case dismissed. A close look at the case law and the wording in the Transportation Code shows that a driver is not expressly prohibited from driving from lane to lane. It mandates that a driver must "drive as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane, and may not move from the lane unless that movement can be made safely". In this case, we established during cross examination that the lane movement occurred at 3a.m. and that there was very little traffic in the area. We further showed that at the time the officer observed the lane crossings, there was no oncoming traffic and no danger presented to other drivers behind our client. The judge suppressed.
Another good example is the client who was traveling from another State and was pulled over by a DPS trooper for not having a front license plate. The law in Texas states that a driver must display both a front and back license plate. However, how would that apply to a visitor with an out of state registration when his State did not issue a front license plate? The right question got our client's case dismissed.
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST
An attack on the officer's stop can be a powerful way of defeating the State's Driving While Intoxicated case, but it is by no means the only way of defending a DWI case. Even if the peace officer had cause to stop for a traffic violation, he may only seize a person on the side of the road for the amount of time necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Unless the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the driver he has stopped is intoxicated, he must issue his ticket and release the driver.
If the officer has no information to believe the driver had been drinking alcohol or was otherwise impaired, he cannot then continue on with his investigation. In other words, an officer cannot just ask just any driver to stay on the side of the road and submit to embarrassing field sobriety tests.
Many times the officer will testify at trial that he smelled alcohol on the driver or observed him to stumble when he exited the vehicle. Perhaps the officer will testify that the driver had slurred speech or trouble retrieving his driver's license when requested. Maybe the officer will say the driver admitted to drinking alcohol. These are all relevant factors that will enable the officer to continue his investigation. However, what if none of this information is reported in the police officer's written report?
The police officer must prepare an offense report after each arrest. He is trained, both at the academy and in his DWI training, to report every important fact that justifies a DWI arrest. He is further required under Texas law to submit a sworn report to the Department of Public Safety after each arrest when the driver refuses or fails a breath test. What is a Jury or Judge to make of a recollection by the police officer, made months after a DWI arrest, that doesn't comport with the information he previously documented in his offense report? Our experience has been that his testimony is largely discounted, and when it relates to the continued seizure of our clients, suppression is a likely possibility.
Keep in mind that in Texas an accused citizen has a right to present constitutional violations both to the Judge and Jury, when there is a fact issue about the stop or continued detention. There have been instances where we have successfully contested the stop and detention, and prevailed during a jury trial even though the evidence showed our client to be clearly intoxicated. The lesson to be learned here is that the Constitution trumps guilt.
Contact Our Houston Law Office
Obviously, each individual case will have unique defenses and every case presents difficulties that a DWI criminal defense lawyer must conquer. At Stradley, Chernoff & Alford we are not hired to plead DWI cases. We are paid to win. As such, we are committed to finding the defense that gives our clients the very best chance at success. Contact us for a free consultation.
