Clement, David Lee Jr., PD-0681-15

On Jan. 30, 2011 Trooper Johnson heard a radio call about a "possible intoxicated person" in an Exxon (inside Bridgeport city limits) but did not enter the store.
Trooper saw a white Pontiac leave the Exxon lot and accelerate; radar registered 62 mph in a 55 mph zone outside the city limits. Trooper followed and initiated a stop for speeding.
When stopped, the Pontiac pulled onto a narrow shoulder without striking the guardrail; Trooper described the stop as "pretty keen driving."
Trooper investigated for intoxication, smelled alcohol on appellant David Clement Jr.’s breath; Clement refused field sobriety tests and was arrested based solely on odor of alcohol.
Trial court denied Clement’s motion to suppress; the court of appeals reversed the denial, holding probable cause for arrest was lacking; appellant asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to affirm the court of appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellant preserved challenge to probable cause for arrest	Clement contends his cross-examination, re-calling the trooper, and closing argument timely and specifically raised lack of probable cause for arrest	State contends the claim was unpreserved/untimely under preservation rules and Art. 28.01 pre-trial motion timing	Court of appeals found the issue preserved; appellant urges CCA to hold preserved (trial record shows specific questioning and argument; State declined to cross-examine further)
Whether objective facts established probable cause to arrest for DWI	Clement argues the only objective bases were speeding (minor) and odor of alcohol; odor alone, without corroborating signs (weaving, admission of driving from intoxicated premises, failed SFSTs), did not create probable cause	State argues totality of circumstances (anonymous tip + speed + odor + other observations) supported probable cause; criticizes appellate court’s analysis as subjective	Court of appeals applied objective standard, focused on recorded basis (trooper testified arrest was based on odor), and held the evidence insufficient to support probable cause; appellant asks CCA to affirm that ruling

Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (probable-cause/totality-of-circumstances framework for arrests)
Everitt v. State, 407 S.W.3d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (preservation: specificity required to put trial judge on notice)
Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (preservation standard: tell judge what you want and why at time court can act)
Owens v. State, 861 S.W.2d 416 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, no pet.) (officer cannot arrest solely for speeding)