Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See also Jones v. State, 795 S.W.2d 171, 172 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) ("[W]e hold the police questioning incident to the videotaped sobriety test was 'activity normally attendant to arrest and custody’ of a DWI suspect, not 'interrogation.' ”); McGinty v. State, 723 S.W.2d 719, 722 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (holding that refusal to submit to breathalyzer test did not result from custodial interrogation). 11 . 1994The audio portion of the videotaped sobriety test is “merely another example of the collection of physical evidence, both visual and aural.” Id. at 175 . 3 Appellant has not objected to specific audio segments, alleging that they contain testimonial responses. 4 Instead, he objects to the audio track in its entirety: “Your Honor, we would object to any audio portion of this tape. | 3 | 4 |
McGinty v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See also Jones v. State, 795 S.W.2d 171, 172 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) ("[W]e hold the police questioning incident to the videotaped sobriety test was 'activity normally attendant to arrest and custody’ of a DWI suspect, not 'interrogation.' ”); McGinty v. State, 723 S.W.2d 719, 722 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (holding that refusal to submit to breathalyzer test did not result from custodial interrogation). 11 . 2012App. 1990) ("[W]e hold the police questioning incident to the videotaped sobriety test was 'activity normally attendant to arrest and custody' of a DWI suspect, not 'interrogation.'"); McGinty v. State , 723 S.W.2d 719, 722 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Arthur v. Stategreen1 sentence2026There is “no meaningful distinction between obtaining a film of a defendant performing a sobriety test and obtaining a sample of breath, blood, urine, or handwriting, or submitting a defendant to fingerprinting, photographing, or measurements.” Miffleton, 777 S.W.2d at 80 ; see also Arthur v. State, 216 S.W.3d 50, 54 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (emphasizing that field-sobriety tests “yield physical evidence of a suspect’s mental and physical faculties, and thus, the results are not testimonial evidence”). | 1 | 1 |
Floyd v. Stategreen1 sentence1987I, § 10 before consenting to a videotaped sobriety test. 1 See Forte v. State, 722 S.W.2d 219 (Tex.App. —Fort Worth, 1987); Recaz v. State, 722 S.W.2d 32 (Tex.App.—Dallas, 1986); Ramirez v. State, 721 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.App. —Houston [1st], 1986); Floyd v. State, 710 S.W.2d 807, 810-11 (Tex.App. —Fort Worth, 1986, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miffleton v. State
green
2 sentences2026Likewise, the “admission of the visual portion of the videotaped sobriety test d[oes] not offend the Texas constitutional privilege against self-incrimination because the videotape [i]s not compelled testimony.” Id. “[A] defendant’s performance during field sobriety tests is not testimonial in nature, but is physical evidence of the functioning of the defendant’s mental and physical faculties.” Shpikula v. State, 68 S.W.3d 21 212, 219 n.5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d). 1989Under the Texas constitutional privilege, the court held that “the visual portion of the videotaped sobriety test did not offend the Texas constitutional privilege against self-incrimination because the videotape was not compelled testimony.” Id. at 80 ; see also U.S. CONST, amend. | 2 | 1989–2026 |
Branch v. State
green
1 sentence1997Branch , 932 S.W.2d at 583 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Forte v. State
green
1 sentence1987I, § 10 before consenting to a videotaped sobriety test. 1 See Forte v. State, 722 S.W.2d 219 (Tex.App. —Fort Worth, 1987); Recaz v. State, 722 S.W.2d 32 (Tex.App.—Dallas, 1986); Ramirez v. State, 721 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.App. —Houston [1st], 1986); Floyd v. State, 710 S.W.2d 807, 810-11 (Tex.App. —Fort Worth, 1986, no pet.). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Rezac v. State
green
1 sentence1987I, § 10 before consenting to a videotaped sobriety test. 1 See Forte v. State, 722 S.W.2d 219 (Tex.App. —Fort Worth, 1987); Recaz v. State, 722 S.W.2d 32 (Tex.App.—Dallas, 1986); Ramirez v. State, 721 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.App. —Houston [1st], 1986); Floyd v. State, 710 S.W.2d 807, 810-11 (Tex.App. —Fort Worth, 1986, no pet.). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Ramirez v. State
green
1 sentence1987I, § 10 before consenting to a videotaped sobriety test. 1 See Forte v. State, 722 S.W.2d 219 (Tex.App. —Fort Worth, 1987); Recaz v. State, 722 S.W.2d 32 (Tex.App.—Dallas, 1986); Ramirez v. State, 721 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.App. —Houston [1st], 1986); Floyd v. State, 710 S.W.2d 807, 810-11 (Tex.App. —Fort Worth, 1986, no pet.). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Jamail v. State
green
1 sentence1987Appellant urges that Jamail v. State, 713 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.App.1986) holds there is a right to consult with counsel before submitting to a videotaped sobriety test. | 1 | 1987–1987 |