(Tex.Crim.App.1979); McGuire v. State, 847 S.W.2d 684, 686 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.). Thus, if appellant was found in a suspicious place, York had authority to arrest appellant without a warrant. Few, if any, places are suspicious in and of themselves, and article 14.03 should apply to warrantless arrests in only limited situations. Johnson v. State, 722 S.W.2d 417, 421 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). Determining whether a place has become suspicious is highly fact-specific. Facts available to the officer, combined with a reasonable inference from those facts, may arouse justifiable suspicion. Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 251 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). The scene of an accident is not a suspicious place per se. Segura v. State, 826 S.W.2d 178, 184 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1992, pet. ref d) (<HOLDING>), but see Lopez v. State, 936 S.W.2d 332,
holding that a complaint filed within three years of an accident complied with the michigan court rules and was not barred by the statute of limitations even though service was made more than three years after the accident holding scene of accident was suspicious place holding site of accident without more was not a suspicious place holding that construction company that carried general work site liability insurance did not control partiallyconstructed home at the time of accident when none of its employees had been at the site for a month holding that evidence of alleged limitations obtained soon after accident was without more insufficient to survive summary judgment