XXX. Interlock Devices

A. AS A PRE-TRIAL BOND CONDITION

Ex Parte Elliott, 950 S.W.2d 714 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1997, pet. ref’d).

Court held that 17.441 is not unconstitutional, and that the judge did not abuse his discretion in ordering an interlock device as a condition of bond in this case.

B. AS A CONDITION OF PROBATION

State v. Lucero, 979 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, no pet.).

A trial court may waive (as a condition of probation) the installation of a deep lung device under Article 42. 12, Section 13 (i), upon making a finding that to do so would not be in the “best interest of justice”.

C. AS PROOF OF PROBATION VIOLATION

Kaylor v. State, 9 S.W.3d 205 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

In this case, the State proved a defendant had violated the probation condition that he not consume alcohol by calling a system administrator from an interlock company to interpret readings gathered from interlock device installed on suspect’s car. The witness was able to distinguish those readings caused by other substances from those caused by alcoholic beverages. The proof was held to be sufficient even though the State was unable to present evidence that the defendant was the person who actually blew into the device.