Clement, David Lee Jr.
PD-0681-15
| Tex. App. | Jun 4, 2015Background
- Appellant Clement was convicted of felony DWI after a suppression ruling denied his motions; the court of appeals later reversed the suppression ruling.
- The Eastland Court of Appeals held Clement preserved the illegal-arrest claim and that probable cause was lacking based on the officer’s reliance on the odor of alcohol alone.
- Trooper Johnson stopped Clement for speeding, observed facts suggesting intoxication, and testified the arrest was based on the odor of alcohol.
- Clement challenged preservation and argued the arrest lacked probable cause; the State argued preservation was deficient and relied on Article 28.01 timing.
- This Court granted review to address pre-trial suppression preservation and the proper standard for evaluating probable cause in arrest determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the illegal arrest claim properly preserved? | Clement preserved error via motion citing Fourth Amendment and closing argument. | State contends preservation was inadequate due to non-specificity and untimeliness. | Appellant preserved the illegal-arrest challenge. |
| Did the court err by relying on the officer's subjective beliefs when evaluating probable cause, instead of the objective facts? | Clement argues the officer’s subjective rationale cannot drive probable cause when objective facts justify it. | State contends the officer’s articulated facts and the totality of the circumstances support probable cause. | Court erred in treating the arrest as unsupported by probable cause; proper objective review warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amador v. State, 275 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (probable cause and factors for DWI arrest; objective standard)
- Buchanan v. State, 207 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (preservation and specificity defects in suppression motions)
- State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (application of totality-of-the-circumstances in probable cause)
- Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (subjective beliefs of officer generally irrelevant to probable cause)
- Ouellette v. State, 353 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (refusal to submit to tests as evidence of intoxication; prob. cause factors)
- Foster v. State, 326 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (time-of-day and other factors in DWI reasonable suspicion)
- Hailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standards for suppression and preservation)