Before I dismiss this DWI case or get a motion to supress granted I would appreciate any help. Defendant is driving recklessly on a highway and a motorist calls 911. The acts complained of include turning off headlights at night and cutting off of other vehicles while passing. The calling party stays on the line for 10 miles or so until a city police officer goes to meet them outside the city limits where he observes the suspect cross the fogline 2 times, at which time he stops the defendant, gives him some FST's and waits for the trooper to arrive to arrest . I have the name of the citizen but not much more and a motion to supress coming up. From the cases I read, it appears that the traffic violations must have amounted to a breach of the peace for the officer to stop him(prior to Sept. 05).....although the offenses committed may amount to a breach of the peace, the officer did not observe them personally. Can an officer(citizen) rely on hearsay coupled with his own observations to make this stop?
I could call the complaining party if I can find him, but he was not the "citizen" who made the stop.
additionally, Kurtz (152 sw3d 72) seems to say that the traffic violations that give rise to the DWI stop are merely traffic offenses and not sufficient to allow the officer outside his jurisdiction to arrest under CCP 14.03 (d).
Any thoughts....this defendant has a long history and I hate to let it go,b ut, I hate to spend time on a clear loser as well.

Take a look at Brother v. State, a June 29, 2005 Court of Criminal Appeals case. I don't have the reporter cite, but the Lexis cite is 2005 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 983. In Brother the officer was a Hurst PD officer who responded to a cell phone caller's report of a possible drunk driver, and who contacted the defendant outside of the Hurst city limits. The court held that even though the officer was outside his jurisdiction, the stop was lawful because the officer had probable cause to stop the driver for driving while intoxicated based solely on the cell phone caller's information. The case was designated for publication.

Janette Ansolabehere

Thanks for the cite....seems to imply that I need to find the citizen witness to testify at the supression hearing and I might have a chance!

It depends on the circumstances. If the caller put himself in a position to be identified, you may not have to have him testify. In State v. Sailo the witness had pulled over, but then drove off before the officer could get the witness' name. The court (2nd) said that because the witness had put himself in the position of being ID'd by the cop, he was not really an anonymous witness so even though the officer didn't witness the defendant commit any violation, the stop was valid.


Good luck,

Janette Ansolabehere

Once again, thanks for the help....We now have a plea date set as opposed to a supression hearing!

look at a case called Sailo aka Mailo v State, sorry, no cite. It deals with a personally delivered anonymous tip but analogies may be drawn to your situation.

It's maybe not a good idea to start a post with "before I dismiss" or "before this motion to supress is granted. . ." on this site. People other than prosecutors (i.e. people not like us) are known to read this site. Just a thought.

What you don't know is that a couple of months before, this same officer made a traffic stop outside the city limits with slightlty different facts and that was the subjest of a motion to supress that was granted and the case dismissed....all that happened prior to the stop in my case. Therefore, he knew there was a problem with an arrest made outside the city. I had not seen the recent case cited in this post. The heading was a result of my frustration with certain officers failing to learn from their mistakes. Obviously, this is not the first time we have been down a similar road with this officer.
Lastly, I'm aware that others read this forum, but I can't change the facts of the stop and arrest....it is what it is. I appreciate the candidness of this forum regardless of who is watching.

Note also that for offenses after 9/1/05, Kurtz was legislatively overruled by a change to Art. 14.03(g) to grant city officers the authority to make traffic stops anywhere in the county in which that city is located.