Howdy,

This one is a bit odd, so bear with me.

An officer stops a vehicle and contacts the driver. The driver provides a driver's license and verbal self identification. The driver admits he has a warrant and states he can pay for it quickly. While on scene, the driver's family arrives stating they can pay immediately.

The driver is placed under arrest for a the warrant and booked into the city jail. The driver's family arrives on scene immediately thereafter and bonds the driver out.

Shortly thereafter, the driver's fingerprint return from the FBI arrives at the jail, indicating he had provided false information. The driver provided his brother's information at the traffic stop. The driver is wanted for a more serious charge from another city and has a suspended license. Information on the new warrant shows the driver has a history of providing his brother's information falsely.

Due to the history of providing false information, his possession and memorization of his brother's information and the haste with which he was bonded out, it is determined that this subject may be a flight risk.

Officers determined the driver had committed an offense of "Failure to ID, fugitive, providing false information" (Misd. A) on view of the officer at the traffic stop.

The officer learned that this offense occurred at 2340 hours, immediately after the fingerprints returned from the FBI.

At 2347 hours, officers went to the address provided by the driver during the book in process and located him on scene. Officers detained him and confirmed the out of town warrant, placed him under arrest again, etc.

There's the layout. My question to y'all: Due to the fact that the Fail to ID offense was committed on view of an officer and the circumstance that there was only a time delay of 7 minutes between learning of the offense and placing the driver into custody, wouldn't this qualify as a warrantless arrest, regardless of the level of the charge?

My thoughts/training: An offense against the laws "on view of an officer" is one of the qualifiers for a warrantless arrest (14.01(b)), regardless of the level of the offense.

The warrantless arrest statutes apply when there is not reasonable time for the officer to obtain a warrant before the arrest was made.

If there was only a seven minute time delay before learning an offense occurred and placing the subject under arrest, it seems like the arrest would be valid to me.

There is a raging debate going on about this at my department. For what it's worth, at the end of the day we arrested him for the out-of-town-warrant and filed an at-large warrant for the Fail to ID charge.

I know its always "best" to go with the easier method of arrest (the out of town warrant) but I just want to know if the "on view" arrest would have been valid.

Thanks for your help.

edit: Any case law would be helpful, as well.

[This message was edited by Herger on 12-20-09 at .]

Worthington v. State, 38 S.W.3d 815 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist.],2001) rev'd on other grounds 67 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (reversing on State's petition concerning sentencing issue).

Police learned after he bonded out that Worthington gave a false ID. Police spoke to bondsman who then surrendered Worthington and police arrested him for failure to ID.

"Appellant was lawfully arrested for unauthorized use of complainant's vehicle. Moreover, appellant knowingly provided a fictitious name, 'Dustin Pond,' in response to Deputy Howard's request for appellant's name. Therefore, when appellant provided a false name while under arrest, appellant violated section 38.02(b) of the Texas Penal Code, and Detective Bickford had probable cause to arrest appellant."

Worthington, 38 S.W.3d at 818.

Other examples of arrests under 14.01(b) for past conduct that the police subsequently discover includes: Nelson v. State, 848 S.W.2d 126, 133 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (where officer observed defendant operating a motor vehicle on a public street and soon afterwards determined that the license tag on the vehicle had expired, officer could arrest on the basis that the defendant's earlier driving was an offense committed in the officer's view). In Josey v. State, 981 S.W.2d 831, 842 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd), following a traffic stop, the vehicle which Jose had been driving was taken to the stationhouse and searched. When drugs were found, Jose was arrested. This was upheld under art. 14.01(b), apparently on the ground that the search disclosed that when stopped Jose had committed felony drug offense in the presence of the officers.

From Dix & Dawson, 40 Texas Practice 9.53 n.13

Thank you very much, David. Wish I worked in Tarrant County, for once