### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00523 -CR

Eddie Ra y D iaz , J r . , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF B ELL COUNTY NO. 2C06- 0380 9, HO NORAB LE GERALD M. BRO WN , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Af te r t he tr ia l court de nie d his moti on to sup pr e ss ev ide nc e ob ta ine d d ur inga tr a ff ic stop, appellant Eddie Ray Diaz, J r., pl eade d g uilty to driving w hile intox icated. See Tex. P enal Code Ann. § 49.04(a ) (West 2003). The ag ree d sentenc e was three day s in ja il a nd a $1,000 fine . Diaz
a pp e a ls the tr ia l c ourt ’s de nia l of his mot ion to su pp re ss. We a ff

ir m the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
. At approximately

2:00 a .m. on April 23, 2006, Trooper Wil liam J . Sallee obser

ved a vehic le pulling out of a p ar k i n g lot and driving very slowly . Sallee followe d the vehicle and ob se r v e d i t w e a v i n g w i t h i n i t s l an e . W h e n m a k i n g a r i g h t tu r n , t h e dr i v e r o f t h e v e h i c l e f a i l e d to signa l. Be lieving the driver, D iaz, to be intox icated, Sallee initiated a traf fic stop. Di a z ar g u e s th a t t

h e tr ia l c o u rt e r

r e d in r e f u s in g to s u

p p r e s s e v id e n c e o b tained pursuant to the s top. Acc ording to Diaz, Sallee had neither rea sonable suspicion to believe that Diaz was intox icated nor

evidenc e of a

traff ic violation.2 We reviewa trial court’ s ruling on a motion to s uppress unde r a bifur cate d standard of re view. Car

mo uc he v . S

tat e , 10 S.W. 3d 32 3, 32 7 (T e x. Cr im. App . 2 00 0) ; see also Guzman

v . S tat e , 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The trial c ourt’s find i n gs o f fa ct are g iven “almost total defe renc e.” Carmouche , 10 S.W. 3d a t 32 7- 28 ; Guzman , 955 S.W .2d at 89-90. The trial court’ s denial of a

motion to s uppress is re viewed f or abuse of discre tion, s e e O l e s v . S tat e , 993 S.W .2d 103, 106 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), but when the trial c ourt’s ruling s do not turn on the
c r e d ib il it y an d d e me an o r o f th e w it n e s s e s , w e a

p p ly a d e n o v o s ta

n d ar d of re view, s ee E

strada

v . S tat e , 154 S.W .3d 604, 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

A w arr antl e ss a

uto mobil e sto p is a

F ourt h A me ndme nt s e izur e ana log ou s to
a t em p o rary

detention, and it must be justified by rea sonable suspicion. B e r k e m e r v . M c C a rty , 46 8 U .S. 42 0, 43 9 ( 19 84 ); He rn an de z v . S tat e , 983 S.W .2d 867, 869 (T ex . Ap p.—Austin 1998, pe t. r e f’ d) . T he re a so na

ble ne ss o f a

te mpo ra ry de te nti on mus t be e xami ne d in te rm s o f t he tot a lity
o f t h e ci rc umstances. W oo ds v . S tat e , 9 5 6 S. W. 2 d

3 3 , 3 8 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 9 7 )
. A d e ta in ing of fi c e r m us t have sp e c if

ic art ic ula ble fa c ts that, take n to g e the r w ithra tio na l in fe re nc e s f

ro m th os e fac ts, lead him to conclude that the person detained is , has been, or soon will be eng ag ed in cr iminal activity
. Id. ; Hernande

z , 9 83 S.W.2d at 86 9. I t is the State ’s burd e n to pr ov e that a wa rr a ntl e ss detention was law ful. State v. Huddleston , 164 S.W .3d 711, 716 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.).

Th e tr ia l c ourt

ma de the fo llo wi ngfi nd ing s o f f a c t: On April 23, 2006, at a

pproxi mately

2:00 a.m. Trooper

Sallee wa s working patrol on the northbound fr ontag e roa d of I -35. Trooper Sallee sawa 2004 Dodg e Neon pull out very slowly from the parking lot of De nim and Di a mon d [si c ], a

ba r i n B e ll Co un ty , T e xas.3

An oth e r v e hic le tr a ve lin g no rt hb ound on the fr on ta g e ro a d h a d to slo w d ow n to a vo id an ac cident with the 2004 Dodg e Ne on. Tr oo pe r S a lle e fo llo we d th e 20 04 Do dg e Ne on no rt h on th e fro nta g e ro a d unti l it r e a c he d U S 19 0 a

nd L oo p 3 63. T he 20 04 Do dg e Ne on tur ne d r ig ht at th is intersec tion and failed to use its turn sig nal to indicate a rig ht turn. Th e fr on ta g e ro a d of 1- 35 [sic ] and US 190 and L oo p 3 63 wa s a

thr e e lane ro a d w ith t h e f ar ri gh tl an e t o b e u s edfo r r i gh tturn s o n l y . T h e c en t er l an e w as fo r t h ro u gh traff ic and the le ft lane f

or left turns a

nd throug h traff

ic. After [si c] 2004 Dodg e Ne on turned rig ht onto US 190 and L oop 363, Trooper Sallee fo llo we d th e ve hic le e a st o n U S 19 0. Tr oo pe r Sal le e sa w the ve hic le we a vin g wi thi n its lane. Trooper Sallee ac tivated his overhe ad lig hts and attempted to perf orm a tra ffic stop of the ve hicle. T h e dr iv e r

o f th e 2 0 0 4 D o d g e N e o nw a s th e D e f e n d an t, E d d ie Ra

y D ia z. Although D iaz arg ues that “the rec ord does not support the trial court’ s findings of fac t and conc lusions of law,” he does not actua lly dispute these fa ctual finding s, and his rendition of the fa c ts i s c on sis te nt w iththe tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ing s. I ns te a d, Di a z ar g ue s th a t:
a fa ir interpre tation of the ar resting office r’s repo rt , based on his experienc e at the time of the arrest, shows that he did not have r easona ble suspicion to believe that he ha d a n in toxic a te d d

ri ve r n or did he have pr ob a

ble c a us e to b e lie ve he ha d a

tr a ff ic law violation. Rely ing on State v. Dixon , 206 S.W .3d 587 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) , Diaz argues that
a dr ive r i s n ot r e qu ir e d to sig na l a tur n fr om a de sig nate d tu

rn lane and , th e re fo re , D ia z’s fa ilure to sig na l th e ri g ht t

ur n o nto US 1 90 wa s n ot a

tr a ff ic vio la tio n a

nd c ou ld no t be the ba sis of a tr a ff ic stop. Contrary

to Diaz’s c ontention, however , the Dixon court did not deter mine that a turn sig nal4

is unnece ssary

when t u rn i n g fr o m a dedicated turn lane . Rather, the issue be fore the cour t was whether it wa s within the trial judg e’s discr etion to decide w hether to believe the a

rre sting off

icer ’s
a sse rt ion tha t he ini tiate d th e tr a ff

ic sto p f or a tr a ff ic of fense. Acco rd ingto t

he c ourt , “ [b]e c a

us e the tr ia l c ourt

did no t be lie ve that an o ff

e ns e ha d o c c ur

re d, the e vid e nc e was ob tai ned a s a re su lt of an unla wful stop.” The court did not decide , as Dix on asser ts, that a drive r nee d not signa l when turning from a de signated turn lane , and the tra nsportation code inc ludes no exception for de dicated tur n la ne s:
SI GN AL I NG TU RN S; U SE O F TU RN SI GN AL S. (a) An oper ator shall use the s igna l authorized by Section 545.106 to indicate an intention to turn, chang e lane s, or start fr om a par ked position. (b ) An op e rator int e nd ing to tur n a ve hic le ri g ht or le ft sh a ll sig na l c on tin uo us ly for not less than the la st 100 feet of movement of the vehicle be fore the turn. (c) An oper ator may

not light the sig nals on only one side of the vehicle on a parke d or disabled ve hicle or use the sig nals as a c ourtesy or “do pa ss” sig nal to the operator of anothe r vehic le appr oachingfrom the r ear . Te x. Tr a n s p . C o d e A n n . § 5 4 5
. 1 0 4 ( W e s t1 9 9 9 )
. U n d e r t h e t r an s p o rt a t i o nc o d e , D i a z ’ s f a i l u r e to signa l when turning from a de signated turn lane was, indee d, a tra ffic violation. See id.

As to r e a so na

ble su sp ic ion

of int oxic a tio n, Di a z ci te s Fowle r v . S tat e , 266 S.W .3d 4 9 8 (T ex . App.—For

t Worth 2008, pet. ref’d) , to s u p p o rt h is ar g u me n t th a t w e a v in g c o u ld not be the basis for the stop if there was no indication that the wea ving w as unsaf

e. In Fowler , howeve r, the traf fic stop was initiated a fter the office r o b s er v ed t he vehic le cr oss into an adjace nt samedirec tion lane by a ti re’ s width a single time. Id. a t 40 0. Th e re wa s n o o the r i nd ic a tio n o f p os sib leDiaz notes that an all-nig ht fitness fac ility was a lso located in the shopping cente r. 1 5 intox ication. I

d. I n reve rsing the trial cour t, the appellate court distinguishe d “those c ases whe re courts have held that a drive r’s fa ilure to maintain a sing le lane tr igg ere d a re asonable suspicion that the dr ive r” wa s in toxic a te d b y e xpla ini ngthat, in ea c h o f t ho se c a se s, “ the fa ilure to d ri ve in a sin g le lane wa s coupled with some other fac tor that indicated da

ng er or a lack of safe ty , such as the driver ’s leavinga bar , driving in heavy traff ic, cr ossing into a lane of oncoming traff ic, or we aving over a

n extended distance or

time.” Id. at 503-04. Her e, at 2:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning , Diaz was leaving the par king lot in which a bar was located. Diaz was either driving so slowly

that another

vehicle ha d to apply

its brakes 1 to avoid a rea

r collision, or Diaz failed to yield the rig ht-of-w ay when turningout into traffic. When making a turn, Dia z failed to signa l, and he wa s weaving w ithin his lane. Vie wing this evidence i nt h e l i gh tm o s tfa v o rab l e t o t h e t ri al co u rt ’s ru l i n g an d ac ce p t i n g t h e t r i a l co u rt ’s fa ct fi n d i n gs as true, w e hold that the totality of the circ umstances g ave Sallee a re asonable basis for suspec ting that Diaz was driving while intox icated a nd to s t o p him for furthe r investig ation. See W oods , 956 S.W .2d at 38.

Diaz also sugg ests that Sallee’s inexperienc e—he “ h ad only been on the street f

or about eig ht months at the time of A ppellant’s ar

rest”—is re levant in deter mining whe ther he had the
re qu isi te re a so na

ble su sp ic ion

fo r t he tr a ff ic sto p. Ho we ve r, the “ re a so na ble su sp ic ion ” sta

nd a rd is an objec tive one. Ga rc ia v . S tat e , 43 S.W .3d 527, 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). I f an office r has a n objective ba sis for the stop, his subjective intent is irreleva nt. Id.6 Havingfound that, base d either on the traff ic violation or on rea sonable suspicion of intox ication, Sallee ha d specific articula ble f acts to j ustify

the traf fic stop, we ove rrule D iaz’s point of err or. See W

oods , 9 56 S.W. 2d

a t 38 ; Hernande

z , 983 S.W .2d at 869. A ccor dingly , we
a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

__________________________________________

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: Jul y

23, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh