Thom v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Forbes v. Harris Cnty.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-2256 (S.D. Tex. May. 13, 2019)   Cited 5 times
    Finding probable cause existed for DWI arrest based in part on the traffic stop's occurring “around 2:30 A.M.,” and the suspect's refusal to answer roadside interview questions or “give a breath or blood sample”

    (Docket Entry No. 28-9 at 1-2). Because probable cause does not impose "a high bar," Kaley v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1090, 1103 (2014), these facts, viewed together, amply provided the magistrate judge a basis to find a "fair probability" that a blood test would provide evidence that Forbes was driving while intoxicated, Gates, 462 U.S. at 238; see Thom v. State, 437 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) ("Erratic driving as well as post-driving behavior, including slurring of speech, inability to perform field-sobriety tests, bloodshot eyes and admissions by the suspect concerning what, when, and how much he had been drinking, all constitute evidence that would raise an inference that appellant was intoxicated at the time of driving."). Even without the statement that Forbes refused to take a field sobriety test, the warrant-application affidavit contained enough information for the magistrate judge to find probable cause.

  2. Diamond v. State

    NO. 14-17-00005-CR (Tex. App. May. 3, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Appellant's admission that she consumed three beers, along with the open container of beer in her car and her inability to answer basic questions about where she came from or what medication she had taken, were also significant indicators of intoxication. See Thom v. State, 437 S.W.3d 556, 563 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (holding that trial court did not err in determining probable cause existed to support warrant for defendant's blood sample when the defendant "displayed many classic signs of intoxication and admitted to having consumed six beers" in spite of a breath test that registered his BAC at 0.00). Similarly, a defendant's poor performance on standardized field sobriety tests is further evidence of intoxication.

  3. Griffith v. State

    No. 08-13-00242-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 22, 2016)   Cited 4 times

    Standard of Review and Applicable LawThe United States Supreme Court held in Franks v. Delaware that if a defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the probable cause affidavit includes a false statement that was made knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, and the false statement is necessary to establish probable cause, the search warrant is invalid under the Fourth Amendment. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2676, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); Thom v. State, 437 S.W.3d 556, 563 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). A misstatement in an affidavit that is the result of simple negligence or inadvertence, as opposed to reckless disregard for the truth, will not invalidate the warrant.

  4. Black v. State

    No. 08-12-00338-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 23, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Standard of Review and Applicable LawThe United States Supreme Court held in Franks v. Delaware that if a defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the probable cause affidavit includes a false statement that was made knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, and the false statement is necessary to establish probable cause, the search warrant is invalid under the Fourth Amendment. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2676, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); Thom v. State, 437 S.W.3d 556, 563 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.]. 2014, no pet.). A misstatement in an affidavit that is the result of simple negligence or inadvertence, as opposed to reckless disregard for the truth, will not invalidate the warrant.