Important Cases Helpful in Your Defense of a Texas DWI
Important Cases Helpful in Your Defense of a Texas DWI
Schneider & McKinney, P.C.
5300 Memorial Drive, Suite 750, Houston, TX 77007, (713) 951-9994
The information contained on this page is to cite examples of recent cases in Texas DWI defenses.
State v. Homan:
Field Sobriety Tests not allowed to establish probable cause unless done correctly.
Knowles v. Iowa:
Officers may not search beyond what is necessary for officer safety in a routine traffic stop.
United States v. Lambert:
A defendant was seized while agents held his driver’s license for 20 minutes.
United States v. Buchanan:
The defendants were seized when the troopers separated them from their vehicle.
United States v. Mitchell:
A defendant retains his privilege against self-incrimination through sentencing.
Florida v. J.L.:
A seizure cannot be made based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip.
Emerson v. State:
Results of a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test are not admissible unless the officer can show he is trained, experienced or certified to administer the test.
Hernandez v. State:
Weaving may not be reasonable suspicion justifying the stop of your vehicle by the officer.
Erdman v. State:
The officer cannot force you to take a breath or blood test. In fact, the officer may only read you the statutory warning concerning your rights to take the test. It may be considered coercion if the officer answers any questions you may ask him regarding the breath test.
Ferguson v. State:
A person’s blood test results are not subject to police or state subpoenas.
Forte v. State:
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has an illegal alcohol concentration in his body, at the time of driving.
Hartman v. State:
The prosecution’s expert testimony on a person’s alcohol concentration, at the time of driving, must be scientifically reliable.
Mata v. State:
In order to be scientifically reliable, a prosecution expert’s opinion on a person’s alcohol concentration, at the time of driving, must be based on several known facts about the person, including the amount of alcohol consumed, the time of the last drink, whether the person ate and when they ate, the person’s height, weight and gender, as well as the person’s drinking habits and tolerance to alcohol.
Bagheri v. State:
When a trial court incorrectly allows the jury to hear evidence of a person’s alcohol concentration, at the time of driving, that was not scientifically reliable, a new trial may be required even where the person might have failed some of the sobriety tests.
