401 S.W.3d 263
Tex. App.2013Background
- Whittington was charged with driving while intoxicated following a collision in Kerr County, Texas.
- The trial court granted Whittington’s motion to suppress arrest evidence and the patrol-car videotape.
- The State appealed, challenging the timing of arrest, informant identification/corroboration, and probable cause after field sobriety tests.
- Huddleston reported to police and provided information about a black SUV; officers identified Whittington at her residence.
- Whittington was questioned, found unsteady, and subjected to field sobriety tests after being told to sit and not move.
- Video evidence contradicted some trial-court findings and supported the State’s assertion of reasonable suspicion to continue the investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Whittington under arrest or merely detained? | State contends it was an ongoing investigative detention. | Whittington argues the restraint rose to custodial arrest. | Detention; the arrest was not supported by probable cause. |
| Was Huddleston’s informant information identified and corroborated before the sit-and-speak instruction? | State argues informant was identified and corroborated, supporting continuation. | Whittington argues informant was not identified and information uncorroborated. | Video shows informant identified and information corroborated before the challenged statement. |
| Did probable cause exist to arrest after field sobriety tests? | State asserts probable cause existed after observing signs of intoxication and corroborated information. | Whittington argues lack of probable cause given pre-arrest status. | Question reserved for remand; the court concluded the arrest was not proper, probables to be reassessed on remand. |
| Did the informant’s reliability and corroboration suffice for reasonable suspicion to continue detention? | State relies on Huddleston’s reliable information and corroboration. | Whittington challenges reliability of informant and corroboration. | Huddleston’s information combined with corroboration supported reasonable suspicion to continue investigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (detention vs. arrest factors; use of force; status quo for investigative detention)
- Sheppard v. State, 271 S.W.3d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (test for arrest vs. detention; totality of circumstances; credibility not controlling)
- Martinez v. State, 348 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts for continued detention)
- Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (custody analyses; thresholds for arrest vs. detention)
- Amores v. State, 816 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (arrest criteria; factors affecting restraint)