of ordinary firmness. Woods, 213 S.W.2d at 687 (quoting Head v. State, 131 Tex.Crim. 96, 96 S.W.2d 981, 982 (1936)) (emphasis added). The determination of whether an act amounts to a breach of the peace is done on a case-by-case basis, looking to the facts and circumstances surrounding the act. Woods, 213 S.W.2d at 687; see also Crowley v. State, 842 S.W.2d 701, 704 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.); Estes v. State, 660 S.W.2d 873, 875 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1983, pet. ref'd) (both analyzing whether an offense was a breach of the peace under the attendant circumstances). The majority of cases dealing with a citizen’s arrest involve intoxicated persons, i.e. the offender is drunk and disorderly. See, e.g., Romo v. State, 577 S.W.2d 251, 253 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (<HOLDING>). However, Texas courts have found a breach of
holding that delay while awaiting arrival of dwi enforcement officer even though officer who initiated the stop was qualified to perform dwi investigation was for legitimate law enforcement purposes because dwi officer brought greater expertise to scene and could complete dwi investigation more rapidly holding patrol officer out of ms jurisdiction was a citizen who could arrest dwi offender for breach of the peace holding that delay while awaiting arrival of dwi enforcement officer was for legitimate law enforcement purposes because dwi officer was more experienced and could complete dwi investigation faster holding peace officer who responded to a request from another law enforcement agency for assistance had authority to complete the investigation and make an arrest holding that criminal trespass can constitute a breach of the peace justifying a citizens arrest of the trespasser