Two similar fact situations....officer either sees vehicle weaving etc, or gets an anonymous report of an intoxicated driver and makes contact in a parking lot of a business after the driver has pulled in and gotten out of the car, without the officer making a traffic stop. Both were arrested after the officer asks if they had been drinking or it was abvious after the contact that they had. Both blood tests come back well over the legal limit. AlR refused to suspend the license in at least one case....the other is being heard soon. In both cases the officer had an inkling that the driver might be intoxicated, which prompted the contact, but no "traffic stop" was made. However the officer was acting on his observation and information prior to making contact....ie. it was more than just a casual encounter in a public place.
I am not sure what argument was made at the ALR hearing But order says section 524.035 was not satisfied and that there was insuffcient evidence to justify the intial contact and detention. I assume the AlR attorney didnt suggest the intial contact didnt constitute a stop as the order futher says the departmant failed to prove the existance of reasonable suspicion to detain defendant.
Any ideas for convincing a non-atty judge? both are repeat offenders.

The officer's subjective reason doesn't matter, just whether a reasonable person would believe a submission to authority was required. Check out State v. Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d 236, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) for good language. "Police officers may be as aggressive as the pushy Fuller-brush man at the front door, the insistent panhandler on the street, or the grimacing street-corner car-window squeegee man. All of these social interactions may involve embarrassment and inconvenience, but they do not involve official coercion."

It doesn't matter that your officers were suspicious when they approached -- after all, isn't that the case in pretty much every interaction? The officers are rarely just idly chatting. But as long as they don't actually stop the suspects or indicate that they're required to stop and chat with the officer, then it's still a consensual encounter.

You might contact the ALR attorney and inquire why the judge seemed to believe that the officer had to have reasonable suspicion to merely walk about to someone and speak to them. I had a friend who did an ALR hearing. Her judge denied the suspension. The facts: a manager at a fast food restaurant called 911 to report a highly intoxictate man had just left the restaurant. He gave the LP number and a description of the vehicle. A Fort Worth PD officer observed the vehicle, followed it for a bit. He pulled the driver over after seeing him drive up over the curb (among other problem driving). The AJR's reasoning: The officer lacked reasonable suspicion to follow the vehicle!!!

If the facts are good and the right arguments were made in the hearing, maybe we should appeal the finding to the county court or CCL.

Janette A

Just finished watching video of one of the cases....defendant was out of his truck in a prking lot putting air in his tire when the officer pulled up and casually greeted him. Doesnt seem like a stop to me....of course his slurred speech and smell gave him away immediately.
Still not sure why the ALR judge ruled the way he did.