Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of September 15, 2014

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

In re E.C., No. 02-14-00235-CV (Sept. 16, 2014) (orig. proceeding) (Meier, J., joined by Dauphinot and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Relators to produce documents from the file of a clinical psychologist who testified at E.C.'s juvenile disposition hearing because (1) the documents are not confidential under provisions of the Juvenile Justice Code and (2) Relators waived any privileged information through voluntary disclosure.
Roberts v. State, Nos. 02-12-00405-CR , 02-12-00406-CR (Sept. 18, 2014) (McCoy, J., joined by Dauphinot and Walker, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not err by finding impoundment reasonable under either the totality of the circumstances or the Arlington Police Department's policy to tow a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation with a driver who has failed to maintain financial responsibility and does not possess a valid driver's license. Appellant's driver's license was both suspended and expired, and he had no proof of financial responsibility on the vehicle; he was driving a repair shop's loaner vehicle that had expired paper dealer's tags, an expired registration, and no proof of financial responsibility; and even if the vehicle could have been driven legally, the police had no one at the scene to whom they could have safely released it. The State also established that an inventory policy existed, and the trial court could have concluded from the officer's testimony that the policy was followed and that impoundment was not a mere ruse to search the vehicle.