the only conviction in this case resulted from the violation of a posted sign with only five words on it left lane for passing only this is not only the weakest pretextual stop i've ever seen and the main travelling in the left lane for fourteen additional seconds that could have killed scores of people couldn't exceptionally dangerous situation on four lane divided highway i'm being i might point out where there were no other causes for for the stop additionally there were several least several credible legal reasons for driving in the  under texas law a driver is required to move over to the to the to the left lane vacate the nearest lane in the case of a emergency vehicle with its lights on as a court can see in the video that was occurring additionally she was moving to see to to avoid it you can be in the let in lane when you are avoiding striking and destruction and there was a car crossing the highway this  is highway although there is a seventy five mile an hour speed limit does have crossovers through throughout it and so i would in addition would say that there was no reasonable suspicion for the initial stopped for driving in the left hand lane in violation of the sign the let me ask you one thing about it so putting aside whether we agree or disagree with this texas statute about the left lane it is what it is and nobody  that there's been this big discussion about where the sign was let me ask you hypothetically since moving away from this case i'm just talking in general as you mentioned deep south texas texas itself big state you can go miles and miles and not see an exit and so is that relevant in other words not just where is the sign but how likely is it that somebody passed the sign because the stops if any between the sign and the pulling over are either not there or they're just going to you know a rural area that no one would be getting on or off you sort of saying does that is that an aspect that can be looked to agree with the with the court that it is extremely unlikely that that someone patrol officer is going to see the person pass the sign another problem it seems to me from your perspective is correct me if i'm wrong but i believe the texas statute says a violation has occurred or is about to occur or may be about to occur conceivable that it was about to occur believe that the trooper did testify that there was another there was another sign was going to be located a little further up the road but what about my question it let just say how could theoretically if the sign was try out miles before the person was pulled over however there was no exit or entrance for that twelve miles would that be something the district court can and should consider in and that the police officer can should consider in determining reasonable suspicion yes i believe that they can and can should and to some degree you know try to the to the location interestingly the record would reflect that after the the record would reflect that the district judge was surprised at the at the extent of the law and after even after he ruled he appeared to be surprised again you know that  teen miles away from the sign was two for the additionally though the agony case did you know indicate that the presence of a credible alternative reason of the court is the hypothetical example of no entrance or exit but in in this case we don't have to look for a hypothetical credible reason there was testimony and the video evidence would show the additional reasons why she might be driving in the left hand lane additionally she did pass the of the texas d p s trooper who was traveling relatively slowly in the right hand lane and in the video evidence there is a dispute as to the location of the sign i would point out to the court that the extent of the texas law does not criminalize the the traveling in the left hand lane between between signs according to the texas court of criminal appeals the violation is a violation of the song not in the separate law for driving and but we don't let's say she had confessed to passing the sign that would have been good even if it was twenty miles away she'd go oh man i saw that sign ok so the fifteen miles in the twelve miles and the five miles and all of these miles are because what's the likelihood that you pass the sign and so that was why my original question was i could see like if you're driving through dallas on you know forty five you're coming up the south dallas you're going to have a ton and entrances so there's some sign there which i hope there's still a plane but if there's some sign there we don't know if you saw it or not because you're getting on get off but if you're driving to say houston from dallas on forty five and thirty miles and maybe not even see an exit or maybe just an exit that literally goes nowhere goes to maybe a farmland so that's why i was asking that because i think i think there is more to the question of the additionally the in addition to the reason most is to the fact that there was no reasonable suspicion for the initial stop we also have a question that there was no reasonable suspicion for the continued questioning after she had been had been pulled over it seems to me though that that the facts here are consistent with facts where we said at the continuing question was ok things like inconsistent answers by the occupants for example were always looked on as a reasonable basis for the officer to continue to hash questions to see whether something is if  there are a few interesting issues to to the questioning primarily that of the fact that he interviewed erika rodriguez inside the patrol car he did he did note that that was there was you know  reasons for officer safety and reduce noise and the like the but is that as you can see from the transcript of the questioning in the in the record the questioning was was somewhat meandering and they talked about buying a christmas present for her for her son talked about her mother the and then you know he directed the questioning back to what he he was really you know trying to to find you know are you carrying any drugs weapons large amounts of money the the district judge commented that that the trooper is very good at his job so you know to credit the trooper he did he did discover the he did get erica rodriguez to make admission during the course of this questioning but the during the course of the questioning it all it all started with the question about whether there was reasonable suspicion for the stop or driving in the left hand line and whether there was reasonable suspicion for continuing the questioning after the five or ten minutes that he it sir so one of the factors he looked at which the absence of any luggage is that correct as we we've seen that before as a factor yes he did note some of the factors of absence of luggage  he did he did approach the passenger st interestingly enough to begin the questioning and he did know that they gave inconsistent answers about from where they were coming from while nervousness is a is a is a factor in the questioning of believe the court has has as noted that nervousness by itself is is not enough the there has to be some more you know more articulable facts in the reason most to develop this reasonable suspicion the i would i would state that i believe that this was more of a generalized suspicion that the reason both and the that the facts the facts do show defense for the initial for the initial stop in the they driving in the left hand lane by itself should not have been the reasonable in the in the admission of the contraband the weapons that were in the trunk of the car the  so it would require that as the procedural history went to this matter was one that once the once the motion to suppress was denied that there was only a very summary bench trial that but the reason for the appeal is the reasonable suspicion for the stop and the reasonable suspicion for the continued questioning you would find that we had asked the court to find as a matter of law that the there was no reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and even if there were that there was no reasonable suspicion for the continued questioning past the time it would take to issue the one has had committed a left lane violation the question here isn't whether rodriguez was guilty but whether the officer had reasonable suspicion as this court knows reasonable suspicion as a low threshold trooper vera did not have to see her past this time prior case law tells us that she had to be at or near that's correct that's correct however reasonable suspicion is a lower standard in here because texas doesn't have rules or laws regarding the spacing of the signs and based on supreme court precedent we look at the facts and we look at the totality of the circumstances which segues into what you were asking judge pains in relation to do you just look at distance and the answer is no the court is supreme court and this court has told us that facts matter totality of the circumstances matter deference to local law enforcement and to local judges matter and then of course we have the standard of review which is that you review the facts in light of the most favorable to the government here what you have had in this court has referenced it before when officer vero st noticed missed dr drew because she was about seven to eight miles from the sign prior cases have talked about when somebody is st noticed and i realize cases also talk about however the distance between the sign and the stop but it's important to know it was about seventy eight miles and respect but let's let's go behind it excuse me for cutting off i mean to do that but you say when the time that he st noticed her but when he st noticed her she was still generally passing he's in fact right he would have seen her during that time when when when she still had reason to be in the left lane because she was passing no he st noticed her when she came up behind him in the right lane and he was he was driving at a lower rate of speed because he was looking for see felt violations and other types of traffic violation but that time she was doing nothing on that's correct which also the inference can be made that maybe she knew she was supposed to be in the right lane so he slows down even driver but the left lane could can be used for passing there's no doubt about the correct all right so what at what point in your view was she arguably in in violation by being in the left lane longer than she should have been well what happens is he slows down further she moves to pass him and ashley is moving to pass him if you see the video you can see a far that there flashing lights in the distance she comes up upon that and there's another officer who's pulled somebody else over and in relation to what mr truly said that officer however  so talking to the people on the right side of the passenger side of the vehicle which suggests that that's that is their training and the officer of the vero said he was doing that here for his safety but it isn't then she passes him  and then as she's passing him almost it's the other law enforcement officer almost simultaneously if you will there is a truck whose turn is coming from whether you call it a median or crossover turnaround whatever you want to call it there is a truck that's crossing straight in front of them at a distance of a very safe distance but the truck is pulling ahead i mean it is think pulling in front of them and then going over to the shoulder and then turn makes a right hand turn so presumably some type of local and it is then he she drives for several more seconds and the officer our officer rivero accelerates and pulls her over judge the lower court judge for the district court judge found that she had had the opportunity to pull back into the right lane and had not done so and as i explained in the brief the evidence showed here that bus to court and the officer who are familiar with the it's a rural area there are some ranchi to those in a few stores or whatever but not subdivisions and things of that nature so it's a long distance travel and that influenced the conclusion that she had passed the sign correct  about being in dallas i don't think driving in the left lane in dallas is the same thing as driving in the left lane and some long journey somewhere because there you've got so much traffic you need all the lanes just to hold the traffic so you may or may not be passing somebody to you right you just have to be there's just so many lanes because you have so much traffic and that's a different world if you will then the highway where there's maybe no cars for miles and you're driving alone and they don't want you hanging out in the left lane they also want you driving slowly in the employee and blocking people which is what they're trying to like an express highway where you're trying to get places is this making sense yes if so then it's no passing the sign is that the crime so much as the putting you on that you're now in this is where you need to stay in the right lane unless you're passing right and a lot of this flows from the court of criminal appeals decision and abner and i'm going there was conflicting testimony and the lose sight of the fact that an am the person that was ultimately pulled over with getting ready to make a left turn and turn that's when he was pulled over there's zero indication in this situation of that getting ready to occur there's no blink on there's nothing like that and in fact as i said earlier what one for working principals for lack of a better word we have here is totality of the circumstances factual intensity the light most favorable to the government and deference let's get back to the to the scenario about the passion so if she saw up ahead an emergency vehicle with its lights on of the right hand shoulder then the law would require her either to slow down or to get into the left lane for a try miles she just i just learned the sky self that she either has to slow down twenty miles below whatever the posted speed limit was or move to the last one so with that point at the point that she saw and was passing she stopped emergency vehicle totally legal could stay in the afterlife absolutely no question about it and then you have  the question is then at what point did it become unlawful for her to be in the left lane and how long was she in the left lane and whatever it was seven th correct i mean that that's certainly part of the analysis let's say i mean that made me want to one of the facts tell us about answering that question well as i said before i totally agree that when she was passing the other officer that was completely legal and as i said also said before that we see the truck crossing the highway now he goes immediately over to the shoulder that's debatable right at what point you move over because he's moving to the shoulder but the fact of the matter is he safely reaches the full text shoulder and she could move to the bright light and if you look at the video at the end of the video i can say that it's conclusive but it does appear that one  it's not just a matter of timing although the supreme court makes the excuse me the court of criminal apparels and jag and nathan talked about just two thousand and twenty two seconds was enough however i understand that case that you know that they saw the sign was right there and that's the difference in all of these cases and that's why it is a factual intensive inquiry is nothing fits into some neat box if in fact and we also know that officer vero here testified that she had already presumably passed at least two signs he wasn't sure about the rd one and if you look at highway two hundred and one which i think this court can in relation to i don't think it's you just will notice but a common sense thing if it goes south or will north south from fell from her south and she is traveling south and there's a real major city in between there and the court as i said before recognize that as much and all of these factors come into play for example in his studio this court recognized that there were medians there were entrance ramps and county roads and things of that nature and it wasn't troubled by it felt that based on the reason you know the court had formulated reasonable suspicion and of the i believe it's one of the texas courts had talked about one difference is you have to look at these things in real time through the officers eyes so to speak as opposed to doing a video backing it up counting the seconds as you did  did and how reasonable suspicious suspicion doesn't work that way instead what we have is an officer making real time decision and here what we also have is a clearly erroneous stander and as the supreme court has said you need to excuse me the court needs to defer to the local judges and law enforcement in their assessment of the regular facts showing that we're talking about a gram correct me if i'm wrong shit  any doubt that she was in the left lane because she was passing vehicles that were in the right way or that she was passing by and a stopped emergency vehicle with its light if i understand what you're saying i totally agree she went just cruising around in the left lane just because that she right or it was just the pavement was smooth or anything like that she was in that she got into the left lane and stayed there for at least those two different reasons just for the purpose of passion for the purpose of passing which was legal when she passed the other officer and you know the issue about the truck and then by law off she was required to get over and it doesn't matter what she thinks or doesn't think that's not the encourage that's not the test the focus is on what the officer reasonably believed so it doesn't matter what she said now again going back to adelaide because that's the court of criminal appeals case it was different because subjectively the defendant there was going to turn left and that's so that the facts there were a little bit different and if you look at all these cases that have come out of this court the lower courts in texas in the court of criminal appeals they're all the little bit different and so you get back to the totality of the circumstances and the factual encourage the more fact intensive  traffic issue so i'm still trying to determine why in your view just the record show about how much longer she was in the left lane didn't she should have been measured either by how many chance of a mile or how many seconds or both well i tried to be as objective as i could be when i watched the video and i replayed it and what i saw i i unequivocally see that law enforcement has some pundit but he pulled over one hundred and thirty three and but i could see the lights ahead of the fifty she passes law enforcement and the truck crosses the highway at one  two and i tried to error in the favor of her but of course the court is more than markham to check it and the good news about this video is it's been the very beginning of the video because the video if you if you pause it you have to watch it again you can't just rewind for whatever reason so that's the time to get but as i said before when he st see her or notices her it's about seventy eight miles from the undisputed location of the sign and she's in the right line and that's where it all starts of course we don't see anything we don't see her behind so in relation to the th amendment in between the st point when he saw her and the sign is there an exit the record is not very well developed on that but we know of that there are turn offs or medians or whatever you want to call them it's like a steel of course not exactly like cars do but but there are opportunities to  lanes with the media and it's not limited access where you can only get on it to exit story entrances well there are turnarounds so but the judge found that it was unlikely that she had turned around and the i can't remember now i think it was just the officer might have been the judge two bit talked about how this is a highway the t's for long distance travel it's not it's not forty five dollars it's not i turned on houston or any of those it's a rural area and if you look at the map you can see that it was so again i realized anything possible but was there something in those seven miles that most people would accept for me put it another way i was the if i owned the farm and there's farmland then maybe i'm exiting and that's fine but the typical person traveling would only exit when there are some you know area with gas stations in restaurants and that sort of thing whether or not it's limited access or it's turnarounds was there anything to access or turn around for there it was more during cross examination that that came out but there was no indication that had happened and so the fact of the matter is there is no evidence either way on that but the judge felt based on the totality of the circumstances that that in fact could not happen to use the word it would be reasonable for the police officer to think that that's where i'm trying to go right because that's who's his eyes count is what he's saying his experience and he's the one that said it's for long distance travel and in relation to the duration of the stop what we have is he's talking to the i mean he sees me he leans in on the passenger side and he's talking you there's also a transcript of the video if which is you know obviously much easier to read  that doesn't make sense i understand brother but the she ultimately gets out of the car he puts her out of the car because she doesn't have the insurance and so they're going to go check it on the patrol car but he can look it up there and that's how she ultimately winds up outside of the vehicle and he's talking to the passenger who apparently is looking straight is all nervous and he asked i ten or any type questions including how they met and she says passenger says that they met through facebook even though they lived in different towns and what have you and ultimately one of the things that rodriguez has said no their husbands were in prison and they met through visitation and the trooper testifies that from the get go he thinks something's  ue and he even says when he brings mr rodriguez in the car because of the hot sun he says you know he'd be more comfortable or something like that he says both of you are nervous he's having her and she starts volunteering and while mr truly talks about how it's meandering question i think if the court either listens to the video or looks at the transcript you'll see a lot of the times he's just following up on her answers to questions which are answers in which she volunteers various information all right thank you thank you the court and having noted that the sign in question left lane for passing only was one that was one of notice the some sometimes we refer to the left lane as being as the passing lane and and so the sign is a restriction on passing itself we also sometimes refer to the left lane as a fast lane and it is specifically not allowed to exceed the speed limit in the live ten line and again as i noted there was no there was no issue of speeding here it was simply that of being in the telling as the court heard the and and you can see from the record even the district judge noted that the trooper was quote a little quick on the draw the the know the number that i see that believe i saw in the transcript is thirteen seconds the certainly not certainly a viewing of the video which show that it was a very short period of time the and the there is not a question about the location of the sign the  there is not a question about the time when the of the trooper observed her because he stated in the record that he she would he could see that she was behind him for about two miles and then at some point she passed him thirteen seconds later he pulled her over the would and so would just confirm to the court that the that that thirteen that that the presence of a credible alternative reason for being in the left lane in which here we have to do that being in the moving on over to avoid the stopped emergency vehicle in addition to moving and avoiding crossing the hill in the area was not reasonable suspicion for the initial stop go in and passing the st officer actually there's thirty three different reasons the  although i would note that the the texas d p s just tended to drive very slowly in the right hand lane to do these as part of its patrolling particularly in this area and if it if it helps the court take judicial notice of the fact of this area coming into edinburg texas where the violation occurred as the court noted it is not it it is not a limited access highway it is a it is a it is a four lane road with median there are houses on the side in some places there are crossing crossing streets there are ways to take a right there is not much i will point out that there is not much commercial activity in in this area the although if you were to go five miles down the road it starts to change as you get closer to the direction additionally i would i would note that that did raise the issue of the reasonable suspicion for the continued questioning after the stop and i would note that the that the that the court can can see from the transcript as well as the audio recording of that that the questioning was in in my view you know meandering in somewhat unfocused and the