What part of no probable cause doesn't she get?

Probable cause is the level of proof needed to support an arrest decision. It is more than reasonable suspicion, but far less than a preponderance of the evidence. It is all the proof the Texas Department of Public Safety needs to suspend your driver's license if you were arrested for driving while intoxicated.

Recently I appealed an ALR suspension and got a reversal. In the order reversing the administrative license suspension, the court found that "the evidence was insufficient to establish that probable cause existed to believe that the petitioner had lost the normal use of his mental and physical faculties due to alcohol intoxication at the time of his arrest."

In other words, there wasn't probable cause to arrest my client for driving while intoxicated.

The order went on to reverse the suspension and remanded the case "for further proceedings consistent with this judgment." (Emphasis added.)

In order to suspend a driver's license when the driver declines to take a breath test, the DPS must show:

1. that reasonable suspicion to stop or probable cause to arrest the driver existed;

2. that probable cause existed that the driver was driving while intoxicated;

3. that the driver was placed under arrest and asked to submit to a breath test; and

4. that the driver declined the breath test.

The attorney for the DPS apparently had a hard time figuring out what probable cause was as she refused to dismiss the case and insisted on a rehearing - still claiming that the suspension should be upheld because the traffic stop was good. Of course the administrative law "judge" didn't seem to grasp the concept of probable cause either as he denied my motion to dismiss based on the county court's order reversing the suspension.

The deck is already stacked against citizens accused of driving while intoxicated fighting a license suspension. The problem is only compounded when the attorneys for the DPS and the administrative law "judges" can't figure out what probable cause is.

The saga continues...

Cops packing needles

Police in Arizona and Idaho are now carrying needles along with their sidearms in an attempt to limit further the rights of those arrested for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. It's not enough that states strengthened penalties for those citizens who exercised their right not to incriminate themselves by refusing to submit to a breath test, now they want motorists to submit to blood draws by police officers in the field.

In Idaho, about 20% of the motorists arrested for suspicion of drunk driving exercise their right to refuse to submit a sample of their breath (the national average is 22%). Prosecutors say breath test refusals are the reason they still have to try as many DWI cases as they do. On the flip side, maybe the cops are a bit overzealous in arresting motorists for drunk driving. Of course, couldn't happen, right? All that state and federal grant money doesn't have any effect on the number of motorists arrested for DWI, does it?

According to the Associated Press, NHTSA is in contact with the Houston Police Department to institute phlebotemy training for DWI task force officers here in the Bayou City.

So now we have the Harris County District Attorney upset because people who plead guilty to driving while intoxicated are choosing to pay a fine and deal with a license suspension rather than opting for 12-18 months of probation (and headaches). We have prosecutors in Idaho upset that motorists are electing to take their DWI cases to trial. What we don't have is any acknowledgement from law enforcement that sometimes, believe it or not, they don't get it right - that sometimes they arrest innocent people.

According to the Bill of Rights, we are innocent unless proven guilty -- perhaps someone should examine the curriculum at the police academy and baby prosecutor school.

What should I do if I'm pulled over for DWI?

I'm often asked what someone should do if they're pulled over on a DWI. Now the first thing to remember is that unless you are in an area with bars and restaurants, a DWI stop rarely starts out as a DWI stop.

Typically a driver is stopped because of a traffic or equipment violation. Depending on the location and time of day, the officer may or may not start off with the assumption the driver has been drinking.

The first thing you want to do is get your driver's license and insurance card out before the officer approaches your window. If you show the slightest difficulty in getting them out after he asks for them, he will note that you fumbled for your license when he writes his report.

You always want to be polite. Always remember that it is the officer who is going to decide whether or not to make this a DWI stop. If you are rude and combative, believe me, that will make it into the officer's report as a sign of intoxication.

Generally if the officer asks you to get out of your car you are going to be arrested whether you perform any of his coordination exercises or not. Do not lean against your car after getting out. If you do, the officer will indicate this as another sign of intoxication.

Listen carefully to the officer's questions and, if you choose to answer them, only answer what is asked. If you've been drinking, your breath will have the odor of an alcoholic beverage; remember this if the officer asks if you've been drinking.

Before you agree to perform the officer's coordination exercises you need to realize that every question the officer asks you and every task he asks you to perform are designed to gather evidence that will be used against you.

If you were stopped for speeding or for an equipment violation you need to be aware that neither of these is an indicator of impairment. Even if the officer notes you had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on your breath, slurred speech and bloodshot eyes, without any signs of impairment, the officer cannot establish probable cause to arrest you (though you will be arrested).

If you are familiar with the coordination exercises the officer will ask you to perform and you know what "clues" he's looking for then you may decide to perform them -- although I would counsel against it. Just remember, even though there are 93 components to the walk-and-turn test, for instance, the officer (and prosecutor) will claim you are intoxicated if you exhibit 2 or more "clues."

If you were not involved in an accident and you don't have a child in your car and the local police are not running a "No Refusal" weekend, do not blow into the breath test machine. I repeat - do not blow into the breath test machine. If you blow over .08, you've got problems, if you blow under .08 the officer will find some reason to explain the score -- maybe you "elmininated" the alcohol from your system or maybe you were also doing either prescription or illegal drugs that "synergized" with the alcohol and caused impairment.

If you are subject to a mandatory blood draw if you refuse the breath test you sit on the horns of a dilemma. If you think you have an alcohol concentration of less than .08 then you probably should blow into the machine. Otherwise you will be looking at a blood test. While a jury is trained to think of blood tests as infallible, there are a number of evidentiary issues that can keep a blood test out of evidence, or at least cast serious doubt on its accuracy.