Here are my facts: Officers notice a truck half way stuck in a deep ditch, they stop and find the driver to be quite intoxicated. Defense has filed a Motion to suppress the stop in that the truck was stuck in the ditch outside of the defendant's home and the officers did not view him driving the vehicle. Does anyone know under what authority the officers had the right to stop and investigate? Please help....I am a "baby prosecutor".

Unless the vehicle was built in the ditch, I think the officer could reasonably infer that the vehicle was recently being operated in the roadway. Little things like freshly tracked dirt or torn grass might be clues.

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 05-01-06 at .]

Beginning with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Warrick v. State, Texas appellate courts have held that if the suspect is publicly intoxicated and the officer had probable cause the suspect was driving while intoxicated--and like John Bradley pointed he probably did,then the officer can lawfully arrest him. The fact that the suspect ran his truck into a ditch is excellent evidence that he had lost the normal use of his mental or physical faculties. There are a load of cases citing Warrick. I think you could also make the argument that the officer could arrest him under 14.03(a), CCP. Surely a drunk person sitting in a pickup in a ditch would make the ditch a "suspicious place"? Community caretaking should provide a basis for the officer's initial approach of the suspect.

As you know, I don't prosecute--AGC for DPS--but back in the olden days I did ALR appeals and we argued this issue a lot.

Good luck,

Janette Ansolabehere

As far as the motion to suppress goes, what "stop" is there to suppress? If the car was in the ditch and the police just walked up to it, that's an encounter and requires no justification by the police.

See State v. Bryant, 161 S.W.3d 758, 762 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2005, no pet.), State v. Crawford, 120 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2003, no pet.), or Martin v. State, 104 S.W.3d 298, 302 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2003, no pet.).

Once at trial, you may have an issue proving he was actually driving, but there are a load of cases out there to support inferring from a recently moved car that the defendant was driving. I haven't seen one where the car was actually outside his house, though. That may make it tougher.

Had a similar case, went on appeal, issue was public roadway. Corpus v. State, Austin Court of Appeals, circa 1996. As stated above, it wasn't outside his house. Can an accident reconstructionist see if the position of the truck indicates that it HAD to be on the roadway prior to getting into the ditch?

Are there any other facts that you are not telling us?
ie: was the motor running?
where was the defendant--behind the wheel?

The ditch sounds like a public place to me.
Was this his private driveway or the state right of way?

Thanks for your responses. Like I said, I am a "baby prosecutor" !!!

Everyone was there once! (And some of us more recently than others. ) You should check out the really wonderful TDCAA book "DWI Investigation & Prosecution" by Richard Alpert. It gives a rundown of all the usual problems you'll face in trying DWIs, along with case law support. Also, if you attended the Trial Skills course for baby prosecutors, look for the DWI Caselaw Update section, which provides caselaw support for all the usual problems, including wheeling the driver. I used that as a frequent reference as a trial prosecutor, and still go back to it sometimes now that I'm writing appeals.