Was there a slur speech? Was there bloodshot eyes? I'd like to know about the indic indish of intoxication. He admitted to drinking. You smell the odor of alcohol. That that makes sense, right? You know you're under oath here, right? Yes, sir. And you're still telling these folks here that that we all heard that he said, "I had several drinks." Or do you want to change that answer now? Just tell us the truth. He never said several drinks. The defense attorney exposed significant inconsistencies in the officer's testimony regarding Mr. Martinez's alleged intoxication. The right to a fair trial is guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution. The officer claimed Mr. Martinez admitted to having several drinks, but the video evidence clearly showed him saying he had a little bit. This contradiction was pivotal as the defense repeatedly challenged the officer's credibility by playing the video which did not support claims of slurred speech or stumbling. The judge's allowance of this evidence ensured the jury could see the truth. Okay, Mr. Play, you ready? I'm sorry. the state pass. I think that's what she already you saw the video that we all watched of you approaching um Mr. Martinez, right? Yes, sir. And despite your insistence on what you're telling when you told the jury that you asked him how much he had to drink or if he had been drinking, right? That he's he admitted he had. It's not illegal to drink alcohol and then drive if you're not intoxicated. Right. Um are you a drinker? No, sir. You don't drink any alcohol? Okay. Um, do you think everybody that drinks alcohol and then drives is guilty of DWI? No, sir. So, you said you were out that night as um a speed to look for speeders enforcement, I think. But I think you said you were out there looking for speeders and also uh drunk drivers. Yes, sir. So, you were like the speeding and drunk driving enforcer that night. Um, are you familiar with the saying that uh when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail? Sure. So, that was kind of your role that night. You were out there looking for I mean, it was the night shift. You're looking for people to arrest or pull over for DWI, right? Correct. And you happen to find someone who um looked like a nail speeding and you smell the odor of alcohol, right? Yes, sir. Now, you wrote an office report in this case, correct? Yes, sir. And you wrote that close in time to when this happened, right? Correct. You bring a copy of that with you? Yes, sir. Okay. Um I I saw you kind of looking down earlier. It's okay to refresh your memory. Uh cuz I know it was a little time ago, but um can I just ask you, you know, you don't read directly from it, word for word, but I mean, if you you know, if you say, "Hey, do you mind if I refresh my memory?" That's fine. Okay. Um, you stated um that you smelled an odor of alcohol on his breath. And that was when the state was asking you questions right here. Mhm. You didn't say I smelled a strong odor of alcohol. All right. You didn't say I smelled heavy odor of alcohol. You just said I smelled an odor of alcohol. Okay. Right. Yes, sir. Um, you could have said when they said what did you smell? You could have said, "I smell a strong or heavy odor of alcohol on his breath." Right. That's correct. But you did not say that. Yes, sir. Um, but you'd agree with me anyway, though, that just having the odor of alcohol on your breath, it doesn't that doesn't prove a person's intoxicated. That's right. Everybody knows that, right? Um, it doesn't even tell you how much alcohol a person has consumed, right? Yes, sir. Even if you said a strong odor of alcohol, that doesn't mean that, well, that person's really consumed a ton of alcohol. Right. Correct. Okay. So, he admitted to drinking, you smell the odor of alcohol. That that makes sense, right? Okay. Him drinking and him admitting to it and you smelling it, that doesn't mean he was intoxicated, though, right? That's correct. Okay. Um, now I don't I don't know who I mean, I'm 53. My hearing is not what it used to be. But he didn't say I had several. We didn't hear that. Are you telling the jury that that's what you heard? How old are you? I'm hearing. Do you have Do you wear hearing aids? No, sir. Do you have trouble hearing? Has any close room? Yes. Okay. They family members ever said something like that like they have to me that you have to repeat themselves. Um After listening to it, I think once or twice, are you still trying to I mean, you know, you're under oath here, right? Yes, sir. And you're still telling these folks here that that we all heard that he said, "I had several drinks." Or do you want to change that answer now? Just tell us the truth. He never said several drinks. All right. All right. This is They got this man charged with a criminal offense. You understand that? If you if you were charged or a family member, would you want an officer up there not telling the truth to a jury? Well, objection, your honor, sir. No, sir. Is that your answer? No, truth. So, why is it okay for you to do that? You said it wasn't the truth. Did he say several drinks? You said you did say I had several drinks. It's like you testified 200 two times. Yeah. Overall, which is it? Cuz you just said no. He didn't say that. No, he said. Is that fair to exaggerate facts or to tell the jury things that are not true? No, because a few. He never said several. He never said a few. You play it again? I'll play it as many times as you want. Can you if I played it again, can you point out to the jury where he said I had a few drinks officer? Look, I'm going to try to trick you. Mhm. It's important. We want to be fair, right? Yes, sir. We want to be fair, right? Your job's too important to not tell the truth under oath, isn't it? That's right. I mean, is it is it that important that you've got to exaggerate and make up things that aren't true just to try to convict this guy? No, I don't feel like Well, then why aren't you telling the truth to the truth? We all heard it. The video show the truth, right? The video shows the truth. Yes, sir. You asked him if he had been drinking. Yes, sir. He said a little bit, right? Really? It's not important to you. Did you watch the video before testifying? I just wanted to be clear about what happened and we have the video and then we have what you're saying the video said. Those don't match up, do they? Yes or no? Is what you told the jury match up with what is on the video? How is that okay? That's not okay. You You went up to him and you asked him, "Have you been drinking?" And he said, "A little bit." Right. I I will play the video again. It's in evidence. Do I need to or will you just agree with me that I that that's the truth? Cuz if you're not going to agree with me that that's the truth. You want me to play it again? Sure. You guys mind? That's st [Music] Where you coming from? The guy drink you said how much did he have to drink? Have you had anything to drink? What did he say? A little bit. Little bit. He didn't say a few. Correct. He did not say several. Correct. So that's not a part of this case. Okay. Thank you. manager. You came back to the vehicle. You asked him again, "How much have you had to drink tonight?" And he said one and he said, "Are you sure?" He said, "Yeah." He didn't say a few, right? He never says several. Correct. Or is there anywhere else on the video that he said a few or several? No. There's a part of the video where he says honestly. Yeah. I'm sorry. There's a part of the video where he says, "Honestly." Yes. Honestly, yes. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's why I wanted to show you what the state showed you. And the answers that you gave don't match up with what Mr. Martinez said, right? We heard you ask him two times about drinking. Mhm. Um, did he ever say he had a few or so? Why would you come to court under oath and tell the jury that? Why? That's Mayu. Um, I've got copies of your offense report. You you I'd like to show them to you. I I don't know what what you have, but um you you wrote in your office report, right? That you asked the driver if he had any alcohol at the veterans, right? We heard that. That's the whole purpose of them inviting him, right? We see the truth. That is the truth, right? Not what you're saying. Right. Right. [Music] And he stated what did you write? He had only one and you put O N E. And then you put parenthesis and the number one in there to make sure that there was no confusion in your office report that he said he had a one or three. Yes. He never wrote anywhere that he had a few or several or that he came back later and said, "Well, honestly, I have a more to drink." Is that it anywhere in there? No. Is this the kind of police work that you are used to getting away with doing? No. Oh, so you don't get away with this all the time? Or you do get away with it all the time? Yes or no? Do you get away with writing those words? It's on the back. You write again that you asked the driver if you had any alcohol and beverages. That's like two places and you saying that that you had only one and you wrote the number one o and then you put parentheses the number one period. anything about that I'm misrepresenting? No. The officer's report falsely suggested Mr. Martinez exhibited physical signs of intoxication, such as stumbling and chewing gum to mask alcohol. Texas Penal Code section 49.01 defines intoxication as lacking normal mental or physical faculties due to alcohol or drugs. However, the defense highlighted that the video showed no stumbling and the officer only learned about the gum from another officer, not through personal observation. This misrepresentation was critical as the officer's claim of intoxication relied on unverified assumptions. The judge's oversight ensured these falsehoods were challenged effectively. You approached the vehicle and he was holding his license and insurance out the window. You were going to ask him for that, right? How in the world is that a sign of intoxication? You said it. Yes, sir. That's a sign of intoxication. Usually, is that a sign of intoxication? Yes or no? No. Then why are you here trying to tell the jury that it is? I never said that. Do you remember 10 minutes ago when they were asking you questions and you said he was bouncing his license and you're trying to insinuate that that was weird or some observation right about like his mental or physical faculties? Yes. So, so okay. Um, you you talked about um Nitsa, right? Yes, sir. And I know this isn't the manual you received, but National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That's NHTSA, right? That's an acronym that stands for the federal agency, that is the authoritative body on um how to administer field sobriety tests. Right. And they give you an arsenal of three tools, three tests. There's an eye test, the horizontal gaze status, right? You know the name of the other two? Yes. While they turn. Okay. Three tests that you can use to administer and as you said to determine if a person is intoxicated or not. Right. Yes, sir. And that's what you were intending to do. You smelled alcohol. You asked him if he would do those sobriety tests. Yes, sir. And he said no. Um, people have the right to refuse those tests. Right. Correct. And he he that right. He thought about it. He made a conscious decision and said no. Right. Yes, sir. Which he has the right to do. Yes, sir. Now what you decide to do if somebody refuses that's up to you probably it's up to you objection that's nonresponsive your honor asked the yes or no question of you guys are it's just don't get hostile ask the question let him answer that's it objected nonresponsive what's your question I said if he refuses or submits what you. If he refuses, what you decide to do next is up to you. Yes. Okay. Okay. So, you you intended to perform those tests as you stated to determine if he was intoxicated or not, right? Correct. That you were not able to perform those tests to determine if he was intoxicated or not. Correct. You you stated that um so what in your in your training you went through um you received a manual about the standardized field soiety test right? Yes sir. and that talks about the history of alcohol in the country. Um, administration of the field sobriety tests, but also a whole list, a litany of of signs about how a person's driving that could also indicate intoxication, right? Yes, sir. I mean, there's hundred different clues they list that say if a person is driving like this, that could mean they're intoxicated. Did you know this feeding has never been one of those signs? This is feeding. Did you know this feeding has never been listed as one of those signs? It says feet and breeding. Is everybody that's feeding um intoxicated? Only at night. When you're out there looking for drunk drivers? Uh you're not looking for anyone. Well, that's not what you said earlier, is it? said you were out there looking for speeders and drunk drivers. No, I was still a traffic person. Um, Mr. Martinez, there's no evidence that he was swerving, correct? No, sir. You didn't testify to that, right? No, sir. You testified to everything you observed about his driving to the jury. Yes, sir. Which would indicate that you thought he might be intoxicated, right? You didn't keep anything back, right? Was he he wasn't running red lights, stop signs, swerving all over the road. Right. Nobody did anyway violation. Yes, sir. Right. We all know he was he was speeding. Correct. That doesn't prove a person is intoxicated. Right. I don't know if you saw your uh your radar in there, but all those people that Well, when when you pull him over, there was nobody around them. There were a few other cars that passed. Your radar kept going like 77 well over the speed limit? Yes, sir. All those people intoxicated just because their speed? No, sir. Okay. Would we know that that was a traffic violation? Yes, sir. Was there anybody that called in like 911? There's a drunk driver out there? No. With respect to Mr. Martinez? No, sir. So other than just driving fast, there was nothing else about him driving that indicated to you intoxication. Okay. When you pull pulled over, he he some people who are intoxicated, they keep driving for a long time before they pull over, right? Yes, sir. It shows slow reaction time, right? Yes, sir. There's nothing about how he acted that showed a slow reaction time. He put his blinker on. He pulled over, right? Yes, sir. Nothing about the way he pulled over indicated intoxication. Correct. No, sir. But he did strike on that line. Yeah, we we heard you say that. In your opinion, because he pulled over to the left instead of the right? Yes, sir. That's not how you wanted him to pull over, right? Did you get on your bullhorn and say, "Driver, pull over to the right shoulder?" No, sir. You could have, right? Yes, but to the side. Yes, sir. You could have told him where you wanted him to pull up. Yes. But you followed him. You put his blinker on, pulled over to the left, and that's where you stopped him. And then Officer Pony, or was he your corporal at the time? Yes, sir. He actually showed up after you, and he helped block the scene. Blocked that lane so you it was safe. Yes, sir. He was out on the scene as well. Yes, sir. and he observed Mr. Martinez as well. Correct. Correct. Now, I don't know how closely you watched the video, but you know that that there's there's more things that you said that are not true. When the state asked you questions, do you know what those are? Well, I mean, you wrote in and you have your offense report and Officer Fon wrote a supplement, correct? That's correct. And Officer Pon, is that how you pronounce his name? Pon. He wrote what he observed of of Mr. Martinez, right? Correct. You You stated to the jury that you observed Mr. Martinez chewing gum. Okay. Look through your offense report and point out the place anywhere in there where it says that you observe Mr. Martinez chewing gum. No, I didn't have to report. That's because you didn't notice that. Officer Pony did. Officer Pony comes out and he he even So, you told the jury they said, "What else did you observe?" I observed Mr. Martinez chewing gum and that that was a sign he was masking hiding that he was intoxicated. Yes. Really? Really? Yes. Officer, you didn't even know he had gum in his mouth. Officer Pony comes out. I mean, eventually you did cuz Officer Pony told you, right? No, I didn't know. Where is it in your office report? Show me. Just show me. Where's it on the video that you observed gum in his mouth? The defense attorney dismantled the officer's probable cause by emphasizing the lack of objective intoxication indicators like swerving or slow reaction times. Under the Fourth Amendment, arrests must be supported by probable cause based on reasonable evidence. Mr. Martinez was pulled over for speeding, but no other driving behaviors, such as running red lights, suggested impairment. The officer's reliance on the smell of alcohol alone was insufficient. As the defense clarified that alcohol odor does, if not prove intoxication, the judge's impartial rulings allowed the jury to question the arrest's validity. Officer Boni comes out. He's He asks you, "Did you watch this part?" He asks you, "Does he have gum in his mouth?" And you said, "I don't I don't think so." At that point, he's asking about another person he's not careful. This goes towards credibility, judge, what he testified to earlier. He's asking about somebody else's state. I mean, I can ask what happened. That's a very question. You weren't um you didn't notice gum in his mouth. The other officer asked you and notified you. He had gum in his mouth. Right. He identifies him. Yes. Right. And at first you weren't aware. And then Officer Pon goes up to the car and tells Mr. Martinez, "Open your mouth." Right? You saw that, right? And Officer Pon looks in Mr. Martinez's mouth and he says, "Spit your gum out. You're not allowed to have gum in a patrol car." Right? You didn't have any part of that. Officer Pon hadn't even observed it or asked him to open his mouth. You would have never known. But you're here today representing things to the jury that they're totally not true. I mean, the gun's an insignificant part, right? I mean, you're not trying to convict a person because he had gum in his mouth for DWI, right? You're not. Uh, so you're here like testifying in a in a neutral capacity or are you biased against Mr. Martinez? I'm biased. I'm biased. I'm biased. So, you're here in a neutral capacity? Okay. Okay. So, if the if the jury um it's it's who decides whether or not um it's guilty or not guilty, you or the jury? The jury. Right. you when you arrest a person that doesn't mean that they're guilty of an offense, right? You just have probable cause. I mean, well, I mean, it sounds like there may be a question about whether you even had probable cause, right? Just a little at that point. He was he was earlier making legal conclusions, was he not overruled? I guess my point is is that probable cause, you know, you smell alcohol, you pull someone off the road, it's probably a safe thing to do, right? Yes, sir. If the jury says they don't think that it was proved in this case, they can say not guilty. Right. That's right. And nothing would happen to you professionally in your job if they said not guilty. Right. That's right. And since you're neutral and not biased against Mr. Martinez, whatever the jury decides, you would be completely fine with. Correct. You said you're not here trying to convict him. If they said not guilty, you should be completely fine with that. That's correct. So, it's fine for whatever the jury decides you'll be totally fine with. You know, I I'm curious as to Was there a slur speech? Was there bloodshot eyes? I'd like to know about the indish of intoxication. That's where I was going next, Judge. So, the I'll get there soon. Get on it, dog. On it. Um, so so let's talk about that. you the state kind of concluded by ask or they they they asked you which is typical did you make did you form an opinion about whether or not um Mr. Martinez was intoxicated. Yes, sir. Um Okay. And you said, well, first of all, you said that he had slurred speech. Yes, sir. I mean, there's like less than one minute maybe or a minute of you talking to him. We don't hear any slur speech on the video. I'm sorry. On the video. Seriously. You you say you had quick answers. I mean, what's the opposite of that? Having slow answers? Quick answers to quiet answer. Well, if he was responding slowly, you'd say he was intoxicated because he had a slow reaction time in responding to your questions. I never said he was intoxic. I said he had signs of intoxication. You never said that you thought he was intoxicated. That's the point. Because when the state asked you what did you think about him? You said you said I thought he didn't have his mental faculties, right? Yes, sir. And they said why did you think that? And you said because he said I'm coming from 59. Yes, sir. Perfectly clear. We could all hear it. No slur speech. No speeding it out with a quick answer. Perfectly legible. I'm coming from 59 and that means that he didn't have his mental faculties. The answer that he gave him from 59. Yes. That's what you're saying is evidence that he didn't have his mental fac. Yes, sir. I think you said because he didn't say I was coming from a restaurant or or a bar, you wanted him to say he was whatever. Um, and and that's something you based your decision to take him into custody on? No, sir. Well, when the state asked you, what did you base your decision on? That was one thing you said, right? Okay. Um, physical faculties. You you stated that his balance was bad. He's a little more where it's like we're watching two different videos. Where did where was his balance back? Where did he stumble? Did we ever see that? Yes, we didn't. We did. When he was coming out of the vehicle, he kind of like stumbled. The guy gets out of the vehicle. He turns around like this and puts his hand on the car. Where in the world could he stumble in a foot and a half space? He did not stumble. That's where I'm sorry. That's where you saw him stumble from the time he got out of the car. But You had a dash camera, too, that was in your car. So, if he stumbled, there's a whole other camera that would show that, right? Is it? Why didn't we see that? Why don't we see something that shows what you saying is true? Whose job is it? I I think you're putting them in a bad spot, don't you think? They're trying to prove what you say is true, but they can't. Don't you see that? They can't prove that that he said he had several drinks or a few drinks. They can't prove that. You're making their job very hard. You get that? Is there something else you want to give them to help them prove that you're telling the jury the truth? It's all there. It's all there. We none of us just see it. It's just It's all there. He he had glasses on when he was sitting in the driver's seat. You see that? Did you're saying that you notice he had glossy eyes? Yes, sir. And the few seconds you looked at him. Yes, sir. Um, did you know that you know glossy eyes is not a sign of intoxication at all? You agree with me? Are you agreeing with I can't I I don't know. I don't know what you're agreeing to or what you're not. Are you agreeing with me that I'm right or are you arguing with me that I'm wrong? Well, red blush eyes is good for I didn't ask that. I said glossy eyes through his glasses. Did you know that according to your Nitsa training, all the clues, glossy eyes are not a sign of intoxication? That's right. So, you're agreeing with me? Yes, sir. So why in the world would you write that and try to tell the jury that's a that's another sign of intoxication you're telling them it doesn't even prove intoxication. Why? Why are you doing that intoxication? You they ask you to list, you know, we're taking notes over here, right? You see us over here. We're writing things down. They asked you what signs more than one time slur speech which we didn't hear eyes. You You said that. Are you saying that you didn't say it? No. I say [Music] okay. Um you know that that's a Bible sign of people being alive. You have liquid on your eyes. If you don't, there's a real problem. Are you you ever thought about it that way? Well, then why are you trying to tell these folks that there's things that you probably didn't even see and trying to tell him that meant he was intoxicated? Doesn't sound like you're being real fair or neutral to me. Never said that he was intoxicated. You never did. The only thing that refused the SSTs who said that he was intoxicating high into you never said he was intoxicated but he refused the SFSTs and that said he's intoxicated. I'm just repeating what you just said. You know, have you ever heard the saying, you can tell the truth, you don't have to remember what your answers were or you don't have to remember what you said. Right. That's fine. Okay. They kept asking you to tell us your opinion about what did you base your decision on and you decided 59 for mental faculties, physical faculties. I mean, we didn't see any stumbling. You glossy eyes are not a sign of intoxication. I think you even said droopy eyes, didn't you? Yes, sir. I wrote that down. Yes, sir. For God's sake, show me where you wrote droopy eyes at any of your offense reports, probable cause affidavit, blood warrant, called it in on your MDTs. Show me one place where you said when you wrote this offense report after this arrest that he had droopy eyes. Show me it. decided to record those. First time ever today you thought you'd throw that in there. Well, you did. You didn't. Yes, you did. You just decided you would throw that in there because you did throw it in there. Did you ever tell anybody that before today? You know, there's a picture of his uh mug shot that they have in color this black and white. If he's got red eyes, droopy eyes, wouldn't you want to show the mug shot in color to prove to the jury what you're saying is true? That'd be pretty powerful evidence, right? You I mean, you've probably been in Have you ever been in a trial before? No, this one person. Okay. There's no alcohol in the vehicle. That was a question. The state asked you a question. Did you form the opinion of whether or not he was intoxicated? You stated I wasn't able to do or you weren't able to do the field sobriety test to determine if he was intoxicated or not. Correct. Said that he refused. Right. I'm saying you were not able, you said you do the field sobriety test to determine if a person's intoxicated. You were not able to determine if he was intoxicated. Correct. And you have stated twice or more. You never said you thought he was intoxicated. Correct. Okay. Okay. But you arrested him, put him in cuffs, and he was in custody. You even called it in on the radio. one in custody for DWI. Listen, but she didn't think he was intoxicated. Frank, I can't object to I don't know what else. Okay, that's all right. May this excuse. Thank you so much for being very subject to recall. I releasing him. Uh I think it's going to take a break. [Music] All right. Please say it. Tyler, we had a motion. Uh, I have a motion to suppress the arrest. Um, no probable cause. I mean, I think there's no credibility at all with this. I'm going to grant it. and all the evidence that came after her. The defense exposed the officer's potential bias, questioning whether he exaggerated facts to secure a conviction. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 38.23, prohibits evidence obtained unlawfully from being used against the defendant. By admitting he was looking for drunk drivers, the officer's neutrality was undermined, especially when he conceded the jury's role in determining guilt. The defense stressed that a not-uilty verdict would not impact the officer's job, reinforcing his duty to remain unbiased. The judge's guidance ensured the jury understood their authority to decide based on facts, not the officer's narrative. Like and subscribe for more police cam stories. Watch the next recommended video. Click to watch now.