Suspicious Circumstances: Bar-Dictated Traffic Stops
I frequently observe suspicious DWI cases where bars summon police officers to shadow specific vehicles. Whether or not these drivers actually commit traffic infractions remains questionable—regardless of the claims in a police report—as the officers essentially act as the bar’s private enforcement.
For example, my office recently represented a client who danced with an empty beer bottle. A manager—acting as an intruder in the client’s business—ordered him to discard the bottle (an order the client obeyed immediately after the song). Despite this, four bouncers confronted him. As he drove away from the bar, the police intercepted him. Did he commit a traffic offense? The officer’s dash camera revealed no such violation. Furthermore, despite the officer’s written claims, the footage showed that the client operated the vehicle with his headlights on.
In my professional opinion, these actions violate the law. If a defendant testifies to these facts, they earn a jury instruction under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 38.23. This instruction empowers a jury to acquit a defendant with a “Not Guilty” verdict if they determine the police conducted an illegal stop. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.” A democracy fails when the law neglects to protect citizens against illegal search and seizure.
