Barber, Grady Jack
11/06/25
“Is an officer authorized to make an arrest for an alleged offense as ‘within his presence or view’ when he has probable cause to arrest due to his post-incident investigation, even though the alleged offense occurred neither in his actual presence nor in his actual view?”
Barber was involved in a motor-vehicle accident in Liberty County that resulted in another person’s death. After the crash, he was transported to a hospital in Harris County. A Liberty County officer obtained a blood-draw warrant based on (1) a witness’s statement that Barber had consumed two alcoholic beverages before the accident, and (2) the officer’s own observation that Barber exhibited signs of intoxication. The Liberty County officer later arrested Barber in Harris County without a warrant.
The trial court granted Barber’s motion to suppress, which argued, among other things, that the out-of-jurisdiction officer lacked authority under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 14.03(d) to arrest him in Harris County because there was no evidence that the offense occurred within the officer’s “presence or view.”
The State appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the suppression order. Relying on the information in the officer’s search warrant affidavit, the court held that it was sufficient to satisfy art. 14.03’s “in the officer’s presence or view” requirement.
Barber now contends that the lower court’s holding embraces “a dubious proposition where ‘[the officer] arrived on the scene of the motor vehicle crash after it had occurred,’ and ‘the motor vehicle crash did not occur within [the officer’s] physical presence or view.’” He argues that the court erroneously conflated probable cause with the statutory “presence or view” requirement, thereby reading those words out of article 14.03(d) and similar statutes.