The Woodlands DWI Lawyer

Suppressing evidence is one of the best tools available to your Woodlands DWI Attorney. If the evidence is suppressed by the judge then it can’t be used against you. Not all evidence meets the strict legal requirements for suppression. The typical situation is when police have obtained evidence against you without probable cause for detaining you. If you end up giving the police reasonable suspicion and probable cause through your voluntary actions before you have been officially detained then your opportunity to suppress evidence may disappear and your Woodlands DWI Attorney may have a much harder time defending your case. Cynthia Priddy was arrested for DWI on March 20, 2008. Let’s look at her story and discuss the difference between a voluntary encounter with police and an investigative detention.

The Police Stop

Sergeant John Klenk of the Burkburnett Police Department testified that on the evening of March 20, 2008, dispatch received a call from an unidentified person at Red River Hospital regarding Cynthia Priddy, who had sought admission to the hospital. Sergeant Klenk testified that the person from the hospital told dispatch that the hospital could not admit Cynthia Priddy because the hospital was full but also said that Cynthia had been drinking and appeared to be intoxicated. This person also said that Cynthia had left the hospital in a Hummer. The person from the hospital provided dispatch with Cynthia’s name, make of car, location and direction of her departure, and her address.

Sergeant Klenk located the Hummer at around 11:00 or 11:15 p.m. – about fifteen minutes after receiving the information from dispatch-on the side of the road in front of Citibank, legally parked, but still running and with its lights on. The officer testified that the Hummer was in a “business” area in downtown Burkburnett, and none of the nearby stores or businesses was open at that time. He pulled in behind the Hummer, turned his spotlight on it, and ran the license tags, but he could not tell if anyone was inside because of the heavy tint on the windows. As he approached the Hummer, he saw Cynthia “laid over the seat, ” eating a hamburger; when she saw the officer, she sat up and rolled her window down. Although it is unclear whether Sergeant Klenk gestured to Cynthia to roll down the window, the trial court believed he did. At that point, Sergeant Klenk asked Cynthia for her driver’s license. Cynthia had to fumble around to find it, but she eventually did. Despite the odor of the hamburger in the vehicle, Sergeant Klenk could also smell the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle. Sergeant Klenk observed that Cynthia’s eyes were bloodshot and glazed. He asked her to step out.

Analysis

In her motion to suppress, Cynthia contended that Sergeant Klenk impermissibly detained and interrogated her based on an anonymous tip, that her statements to him should be suppressed, and that his warrantless arrest of her was impermissible. In its first issue on appeal, the State contended the trial court erroneously suppressed the evidence discovered during the interaction between Cynthia Priddy and Sergeant Klenk because it was a voluntary encounter and that Cynthia Priddy was not detained until after she rolled down her window and Sergeant Klenk smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage, thus giving him reasonable suspicion to investigate her for possible DWI.

A Voluntary Encounter

In its conclusions of law, the trial court concluded that “[a]n officer does not need reasonable suspicion or probable cause before he talks to a person in a public place or asks questions.” But the trial court did not otherwise elaborate on whether Sergeant Klenk’s interaction with Cynthia Priddy was an encounter, an investigative detention, or both.

Cynthia Priddy points to Sergeant Klenk’s activating his spotlight and what she characterizes as an order to her that she “needed” to roll down her window as showing that their entire interaction was an investigative detention, for which Sergeant Klenk did not possess reasonable suspicion.

The court found no no evidence that Sergeant Klenk activated his patrol car’s overhead lights or its siren when parking behind Cynthia Priddy’s Hummer, nor is there any evidence that he blocked her egress from where she was parked. Likewise, there is no evidence that when Sergeant Klenk approached the vehicle and gestured to Cynthia Priddy to roll down the window that he engaged in any activity that would have indicated to Cynthia that she was being detained or was not free to terminate the encounter.

The court concluded that up to the point when Cynthia Priddy rolled down her window and Sergeant Klenk smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage, Sergeant Klenk’s actions were justified as a voluntary encounter.

Reasonable Suspicion for Detention

Once Cynthia Priddy rolled down her window and Sergeant Klenk “smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from the vehicle” and saw her bloodshot and glazed eyes, the voluntary encounter became an investigative detention based upon reasonable suspicion that Cynthia had been driving while intoxicated. Thus, after that point, Sergeant Klenk was authorized to detain Cynthia Priddy for the purpose of investigating whether she had been driving while intoxicated, and the trial court abused its discretion by granting appellee’s motion to suppress.

Get Help Now

TheWoodlandsDWILawyer.com is here to help you stop a DWI from ruining your life. Call (832) 426-3913 to speak with a Woodlands DWI Lawyer today.