Thom v. State

1 Citing case

  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.