Opinion
No. 05-09-01171-CR
Opinion issued February 10, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 002-80834-05.
Before Justices MORRIS, MOSELEY, and MYERS. Opinion By Justice MORRIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a previous proceeding, the trial court granted Ryan Wilson Purdy's motion to suppress the evidence gathered as the result of his stop and arrest for driving while intoxicated. We then reversed the trial court's order and remanded the cause for further proceedings. This appeal pertains to the remanded cause. In a single issue, appellant now claims the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress on remand. Concluding appellant's issue is without merit, we affirm the trial court's judgment. The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. At a hearing in the remanded cause, appellant once again moved to suppress the evidence gathered as the result of his stop and arrest for driving while intoxicated. He based his argument on the testimony of the arresting officer. The officer for the city of Plano, Texas stated that he began his search for a driver suspected of DWI after an unidentified citizen came to the jail and reported that as he was traveling north on Interstate 75 his truck was bumped from behind by a driver in a white Chevrolet Corsica. The citizen gave the officer a partial licence plate number and his opinion that the driver of the Chevrolet was intoxicated because he was "all over the road." At that point, the officer left the jail and traveled north on I-75 until he found and stopped a car meeting that description. The officer had crossed the boundary between Plano and Allen, Texas before he spotted appellant's car. Appellant argued, among other things, that the officer had no jurisdiction to leave the city of Plano and enter the city of Allen to investigate the possible DWI. The trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress, and a jury convicted him of DWI. Appellant now argues that the arresting Plano officer had no jurisdiction to leave Plano and investigate the possible DWI in Allen. He specifically contends, "Purdy's detention was unlawful as Officer Blumrick either did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to leave his jurisdiction to investigate, or, assuming that Blumrick did have reasonable suspicion based on the anonymous tip, he still could not lawfully enter the City of Allen as there were no facts indicating he was in hot pursuit or that could meet the requirements of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Section 14.03." Generally, when a peace officer leaves his jurisdiction, he cannot perform the functions of his office. Garcia v. State, 296 S.W.3d 180, 184 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.). But this fact does not prevent the officer from leaving his jurisdiction. And once the peace officer obtains from his own personal observation, in addition to information offered by an informant, sufficient knowledge to cause the officer to believe an offense is being committed in the officer's presence, then the officer may lawfully detain or arrest the suspect for the offense. See Martinez v. State, 261 S.W.3d 773, 776 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2008, pet. ref'd). The trial court's previous finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop appellant was undisputed at the original suppression hearing and was not addressed in the hearing on remand. See State v. Purdy, 244 S.W.3d 591, 593 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, pet. ref'd). Appellant's argument that the officer could not lawfully leave Plano or enter Allen is not well taken. We resolve his sole issue against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
See State v. Purdy, 244 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. App.-Dallas, 2008, pet. ref'd).