Timothy Urbanek v. State, 11-16-00125-CR

Timothy Urbanek pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor DWI (BAC ≥ 0.15); sentence: one year jail (suspended) and 18 months community supervision plus $750 fine.
Trooper Justin Becker observed Urbanek roll through a stop sign and have inadequately illuminated license plate lights near closing time by nearby bars; Becker followed but did not activate lights.
Urbanek parked at a gas station and remained in his truck; Becker approached to ask if he was okay and Urbanek consented to talk.
During the encounter Becker smelled a strong odor of alcohol, observed bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and swaying; Urbanek admitted drinking ("about five beers" and later "plenty to drink").
Becker requested Urbanek’s license, ran dispatch checks, administered field sobriety tests (Urbanek swayed and needed steadying), then arrested him for DWI.
Urbanek moved to suppress evidence, arguing the contact was not consensual and, alternatively, that there was no reasonable suspicion to detain; the trial court denied the motion and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Urbanek's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Trooper Becker’s initial contact was a consensual encounter or an impermissible seizure	Officer’s presence, demeanor, and commands made Urbanek reasonably believe he was not free to leave	Becker’s approach was noncoercive; Urbanek consented to talk and was free to depart; even if detention, traffic violations justified stop	Initial contact was a consensual encounter; alternatively, traffic violations provided justification for a stop (issue overruled)
Whether Trooper Becker had reasonable suspicion to detain and investigate for DWI	Becker lacked specific articulable facts to justify an investigative detention	Totality of circumstances (direction from bars, traffic violations, odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, admissions) gave reasonable suspicion to investigate and perform sobriety tests	Court held Becker had reasonable suspicion to detain and investigate; sobriety testing and subsequent arrest were lawful (issue overruled)

Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard of review for suppression hearings)
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to trial court findings of fact)
Woodard v. State, 341 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App.) (distinguishing consensual encounters from detentions)
Castro v. State, 227 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. Crim. App.) (traffic violations observed in officer’s presence can justify stop)
Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App.) (totality of circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (framework for investigative stops; reasonable suspicion standard)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (consensual encounters and voluntary cooperation)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (questioning and scope of roadside encounters)
United States v. Brigoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (U.S. 1975) (detention to investigate on less than probable cause)
Rodriguez v. State, 191 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App.) (field sobriety testing may lead to probable cause for arrest)