holding that probable cause for warrantless arrest requires officer to have reasonable belief that offense has been committed based on facts and circumstances either (1) within officer’s personal knowledge or (2) of which officer has reasonably trustworthy information
How later courts described this case
- holding that probable cause for warrantless arrest requires officer to have reasonable belief that offense has been committed based on facts and circumstances either (1) within officer’s personal knowledge or (2) of which officer has reasonably trustworthy information
- holding that insufficient evidence existed to support arresting officer=s probable cause determination when he testified at the suppression hearing that he arrested defendant because two sheriff=s deputies told him that they believed the defendant was intoxicated
- recognizing that, under Texas law, warrantless arrests are proper only when (1) probable cause for the arrest exists with respect to the individual in question and (2) the arrest falls within one of the statutory exceptions to the warrant requirement
- stating that unexplained opinions that the defendant was intoxicated relayed by sheriff’s deputies to a state trooper did not give rise to probable cause for an arrest when they did not articulate supporting facts on which their opinions were based
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Gregory Blaine Scheideman v. State (2011)
Torres, however, is distinguishable.
Distinguished by Robert Edwin Kercho v. State (2007)
reasons that Torres is distinguishable: here, the testifying officer did
The opinion
*904 MEYERS, J.,
dissenting.
Because I feel that the officer in this case had probable cause to arrest the appellant, I respectfully dissent.