Court Opinion

ID: 9706540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:45:53.638141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:23.492880
License: Public Domain

GRAY, Justice,
dissenting.
Pantego officers never lost sight of Yeager after they had a proper basis for detention in their jurisdiction. They pursued him for further observation. He crossed the boundary of Pantego. Upon observing additional dangerous driving, they detained Yeager and determined that he was intoxicated and arrested him for driving while intoxicated in Pantego. Even though the “pursuit” was not at a high rate of speed, or with flashing lights and sirens, the doctrine commonly known as “hot pursuit” by which law enforcement officers are allowed to make an arrest of a suspect in another jurisdiction for a crime occurring in their jurisdiction is appropriately applied to these facts. See Duenez v. State, 735 S.W.2d 563 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, pet. ref'd). The conviction should be affirmed. Because the majority holds otherwise, I respectfully dissent.