I have a standard DWI where defendant is clocked on radar doing 37 in a 60 zone at 3AM with very little traffic. One car has to go around defendant because driving too slow in the far right lane. Officer pulls him over for impeding traffic. No minimum speeds on the highway and no weaving or anything else.

Judge says a case called Richardson out of Amarillo says without a minimum speed and no other factors is not enough for a stop.

Anybody got anything on this type of thing? I'm not gonna try community caretaking or officer thought it was a DWI. Ideas?

The cite for Richardson is 39 S.W.3d 634, but I think you can easily distinguish it. In Richardson, the officer turned out to be mistaken about the speed limit and the defendant was only going 10 miles under. Plus, the officer testified that there was little to no traffic around, and no one was affected by the defendant's driving.

Have a look at Moreno v. State out of Corpus Christi (124 S.W.3d 339) -- there the defendant was going 25 in a 45 zone and had traffic backed up behind him. The court distinguished Richardson and said that was enough.

Hope this helps!

I might argue, depending on the facts, that driving too slow may constitute obstructing a highway or maybe reckless driving. If there were no hazard lights or other indication that the driver was signaling to others that he was creating a hazard by driving so far below the speed expected on the road, he could easily have been struck from behind.

Transp Code Section 545.363 covers minimum speed. Cases cited there uphold offense.

The driving too slow may also become part of a reasonable suspicion that the driver was DWI. PC for a traffic violation is just one of several ways to justify a stop. It may not be enough all on its own, but were there other facts? Like was it at 2 AM in an area with bars? Where there other driving facts?