Texas Department of Public Safety v. Sorosh Mirazee Rezaee
09-15-00353-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 20, 2016Background
- In November 2014 Deputy Conklin stopped and later arrested Sorosh Rezaee after observing Rezaee’s vehicle driving on/straddling a sidewalk in a parking lot and noting signs of intoxication (bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol).
- Rezaee refused field sobriety tests and, after arrest, refused to give a blood specimen; a warrant was later obtained.
- Conklin completed a sworn report and read the DIC-24 statutory warning; both the report and DIC-24 indicated refusal to provide a blood sample.
- At the SOAH administrative hearing the ALJ admitted Conklin’s sworn report, heard Conklin’s testimony, and found reasonable suspicion to stop, probable cause to arrest for DWI, that Rezaee was asked for a specimen, and that Rezaee refused.
- The ALJ authorized a 180‑day suspension of Rezaee’s driver’s license; the Montgomery County trial court reversed the ALJ, prompting this appeal by the Texas Department of Public Safety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DPS) | Defendant's Argument (Rezaee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there reasonable suspicion to stop for driving on the sidewalk? | Conklin observed vehicle straddling a sidewalk; that observation gave reasonable suspicion of a traffic offense. | Conklin testified he was conducting a welfare/community caretaking check, not a traffic stop; evidence conflicted. | Yes — substantial evidence supports ALJ’s finding of reasonable suspicion to stop. |
| Was there probable cause to arrest for DWI? | Officer observed odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, dazed appearance — supporting probable cause. | Implied challenge to sufficiency/credibility of officer’s observations. | Yes — record contains more than a scintilla to support probable cause. |
| Did Rezaee refuse to provide a specimen of breath or blood? | Sworn report, DIC‑24, and Conklin’s testimony show refusal to provide blood specimen. | Argued ALJ’s finding as to breath specimen was unsupported. | Yes as to blood; no substantial evidence of refusal to provide breath specifically — but ALJ need not specify specimen type and error was not prejudicial. |
| Did the trial court properly reverse the ALJ under substantial‑evidence review? | ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record; trial court erred in reversing. | Trial court concluded ALJ erred. | Reversed trial court; reinstated ALJ’s suspension order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 9 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 1999) (defines substantial‑evidence standard for administrative license suspensions)
- Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Hirschman, 169 S.W.3d 331 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005) (ALJ is sole judge of evidence weight; appellate review confined to ALJ record)
- Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Kusenberger, 29 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000) (refusal to give any required specimen supports suspension; ALJ need not specify specimen type)
- City of El Paso v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex., 883 S.W.2d 179 (Tex. 1994) (agency decision presumed supported by substantial evidence)