• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Texas DWI-CASE LAW Question-Location Relevance

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

k27viper

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Texas

My question is:

Related to a DWI. The location of the drinking occurred at a topless bar. I find it irrelevant where the drinking occurred. Is there any case law that can strike the use of the location of where the drinking occurred? I am over 21.
 


k27viper

Junior Member
Reply to Location DWI relevance

I am not planning on pleading guilty, I am going to trial. The prosecutor stated if there is case law disallowing the location as part of the case he will not bring it up.

I am asking is there any case law that would state there is no relevance of where any consumption of alcohol occurred since it does not matter if stated one had x amount of beers on the video. Why would it matter where you had the x amount of beers. I would like to ensure where the beers were consumed to avoid being stereotyped. This was a bachelor party.

thanks.
 

garrula lingua

Senior Member
C'mon.
You're in TEXAS.

I've read that Criminal Code.....

You're going to have friction burns on your butt from the speed of the conviction (and a red face from being at a titty bar).

Your friends will talk about it for years; your (future) grandchildren will howl.

You will be known as the titty-bar man.

Is your case really triable ?
What was your BAC ?
What was your driving like ?
 

k27viper

Junior Member
no issues

Not drunk, no tests, cop lied on some things, they did not record hardly anything.....i did not speak did not take tests and video is perfect, have expert witness that says not signs of intox. Just want case law to take out the reference of titty bar.
 

garrula lingua

Senior Member
There was something about your car or driving (impaired) which attracted their attention.

Sounds as though they intend to put on the bartender or witness(es) from the titty bar to prove your having been impaired ?!
I guess they're ticked at your refusal to test. That, in itself, has consequences.

Can't your atty plead this down to a non-alcohol offense ? Reckless driving, or two moving tickets (infractions) , instead of the DUI ... oops, you're not in CA, you're in TEXAS.

How did the cop lie ?
 

Kane

Member
Arguably, the fact they saw you leaving a bar might be relevant. I don't suppose the fact that it's a strip club makes a difference. File a motion in limine. If the judge agrees what else you might have been doing at the club is prejudicial, he'll tell the prosecutor to instruct his witnesses not to bring it up.
 

garrula lingua

Senior Member
ummm the jury is usually local.

They know the titty-bars..... just the name of the bar is enough. Especially if this is a rural area.

In CA, IMHO, the name of the bar wouldn't be mentioned as too prejudicial under the EC. Also, it's not really fair for a Prosecutor to try to throw mud instead of just proving up the elements.

Do the Motion. You can do it in limine, just before trial, or try to file it and argue it now, while you still have the option of pleading out (possibly to a lesser).

Did you tick off the cop & Prosecutor after you were charged, or are they so ticked at the refusal they won't let this go ?

Basically, the Prosecutor has to prove...at that time and date,
1. you were driving
2. you were impaired.

Your observed driving should show impairment, as well as some of the FSTs - the cop should testify that based upon his observations (your smell, your eyes, your balance, speech,etc and your driving) and your performance on the FSTs, that the cop formed the opinion that you were impaired.
Then, your atty can argue that you were not impaired.
You can each put up experts, but there's not much hard evidence (BAC) to argue.

PS: the cop will testify as to how many years he's been employed as a LEO, how many stops he made for DUI, how many arrests from those stops (usually only about 50-70%), etc.
Then the jury decides.

Forget the bar. Can you win ? What did your atty say ?

Oh, and the refusal is usually received by the jury as proof that you knew you were impaired.
How strong is your case ?
 
Last edited:

k27viper

Junior Member
Let me explain

Ok. I was not picked up at the titty bar. It was like 30 miles away. I said that is where I came from. I was followed by police for that long. They did not turn video on until the last second. We are just trying to get the word "titty bar" out for the case. They were hoping I would enter their county, which I did not, so they made up a bogues did not signal within 100 feet turn... I just need case law that weould say it does not matter where I drank the x amount of beers....
 

BigMistakeFl

Senior Member
BigMistakeFl

I imagine you can get "titty bar" out of the equation. But the relevant thing is, do you have a defendable case? Did you refuse to take the tests? What is the evidence against you and will a jury believe your defense? Judges have been known to lower the boom with maximum penalties when a DUI goes the distance and it ties up the court's time and resources.
 

CavemanLawyer

Senior Member
The location that you were coming from and the location that you were headed to will always be relevant in a DWI trial. So they can certainly give the name of the bar. Don't know if that will give away that it was a topless bar or not.

As for the topless issue, it seems incredibly relevant to me. This would be relevant to the fact that you were out partying during a bachelor party. You're not at a typical bar, you're there to indulge in women and in liquor...that's the argument anyway and its a relevant one. The issue is not relevance its prejudice. If the prejudicial effect is substantially outweighed by its probative value that it cannot come in regardless of its relevance. Personally I think you'd have zero chance with this argument. You should still be able to get it granted in a motion in limine but all that means is that the state has to get a ruling outside the presence of the jury before they can talk about it.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top