I'm kinda curious. How many see misdemeanor judges having hearing on probable cause (under 15.17) to arrest the defendant -- and then find no PC based on lack of reasonable suspicion for the stop, or some other imagined police misconduct. I say imagined because everything's being decided just on the offense report with no testimony. Isn't this what a suppression hearing is for? It seems weird to essentially suppress "evidence" when a defendant has only just been arrested and we aren't even near a trial.

Is this sort of dismissal common?

While I cannot answer your question directly, I must say there is nothing said in Art. 15.17 about authority to dismiss a charge, except perhaps subsection (d). And Chapter 15 applies only to arrests made under a warrant.

Conceivably, Art.11.16, in conjunction with 11.09, would provide authority to consider whether there was probable cause, but generally dismissal of a pending case must be with the State's consent under 32.02 and cannot be based on a perceived lack of probable cause already assessed by the county or district attorney. While a motion to suppress can be considered before trial (based on live testimony), admissibility of evidence is normally considered upon objection at trial. So, I would hope the answer to your question is "never happens." In any event, I doubt the accused is considered to have been in jeopardy under the facts you state.

I am going to assume the issue may arise in connection with Arts. 17.028(a) and 17.15(a)(3); and perhaps 17.033(a). I guess the judge is being provided with the offense report in that connection (and not for determination of the validity of the arrest or things which might impact successful prosecution). I guess your judges use this as a method to clear out the jail and their docket quickly. I can't imagine the arresting officers are enthused.