Judge denies motion to suppress evidence in Ryan Allen Remy DWI-with-child case

A judge in the 252nd District Court denied a motion to suppress evidence in the case against Ryan Allen Remy, who is charged with driving while intoxicated with a child passenger in cause number 25 DCCR1246.

The state called Deputy Armani Collins of the sheriff's office to testify. Collins said he received an attempt-to-locate dispatch based on a Life360 tracking report by a named caller, Bethany Anderson, who told dispatch a white Ford truck was being driven by a possibly intoxicated man with a 9‑month‑old female infant inside. Collins testified he located a vehicle matching that description, stopped it, and later observed an empty six‑pack box and, after the driver exited the vehicle, a handgun between the seats. Collins said the defendant appeared unsteady, had glassy eyes, smelled of alcohol and “admitted to consuming two beers.”

Collins described administering standardized field sobriety tests — the walk‑and‑turn, one‑leg stand and horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) — and testified that he observed multiple standardized “clues” across those tests. He also authenticated video recordings from his patrol and body‑worn cameras and identified the sheriff's department lab report showing a blood‑alcohol concentration of 0.142.

In arguing for denial, the prosecutor, Mr. Coleman, told the court that “tips to law enforcement are particularly trustworthy if the caller or tipster is identifiable,” and he urged the judge to consider the identifiable tip together with the deputy’s observations and the community‑caretaking role of police when a small child’s welfare is implicated.

Defense counsel, Mr. Cmerford, countered that the stop and arrest lacked the necessary reasonable suspicion and probable cause, noting Collins did not use radar to confirm speed and that field sobriety tests can produce false positives. “We believe that there was no probable cause for Ryan Remy to be arrested,” defense counsel argued, seeking suppression of the evidence.

The judge said the welfare check information provided by an identifiable caller, together with the officer’s observations and experience, supported the stop and investigative detention and declined to exclude the evidence. “I'm going to deny the motion to suppress at this time,” the judge said. The court set the case for further proceedings.

What happened next: the hearing concluded with the motion denied and the case to be reset for further scheduling. No trial or conviction determination was made at this hearing.

Notes: The lab report admitted into evidence lists a blood‑alcohol concentration of 0.142, above the Texas per se limit of 0.08. The deputy testified the defendant signed a written consent form consenting to a blood draw after some initial equivocation; Collins testified jail video is used for the draw and that body cameras are customarily turned off once the defendant is inside the detention facility.