# Yeager v. State

> Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · June 21, 2000 · 23 S.W.3d 566

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706540

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael John YEAGER, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
- **Decided:** June 21, 2000
- **Citations:** 23 S.W.3d 566; 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 4202; 2000 WL 798080
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Gray
- **Judges:** Davis, Vance, Gray
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Yeager v. State, 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 69 (2003).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706540

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that "the continued viability of the specific jurisdictional holding in Angel [that city police officers' jurisdiction is coextensive with the county sheriff's] may be open to question" because the court based its decision on precise language in former articles 998 and …
- holding that jurisdiction of a type B municipality police officer is controlled by common-law geographical limitation of city limits
- holding that subsections (d) and (g) of article 14.03 extend peace officers’ geographic authority
- applying non-constitutional error harm analysis because source of error was trial court’s application of Texas statutory and common law, not its application of constitutional principles

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706540. Public record. Not legal advice.