NO. 07-08 -048 5-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU NE 23, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lan t

v. JOE ELLI S PATTERSON , Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LAW NO. 2 O F P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO. 122 447 -2; HON. PAMELASIRMON, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. T he St ate of

Te x as ap pea ls from the trial court’s order grant ing Joe Ellis Patt erson ’s moti on t o s u p p re s s e v i d e n c e . P a tt e rs o n w a s i n d i c t e d fo r p o s s e s s i n g a c o n t roll ed subst ance (marijua na) in a drug f ree zone. T he St ate argues thatthe trial court erred in g ra nti ng the moti on becaus e Patterson’ s d etent ion was based on e it her a reason abl e bel ief
or probabl e c ause to c oncl ude t hat he had commi tted a traffic v iol ati on. W e rev erse the trial court’s order.W e d o n o t a d d r e s s w h e th e rP a tt e r s o n ’s c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h , w h i c h n o o n e a tt a c k e d o n a p p e a l, 1 r ender ed m oot t he v al i di t y of t he st op. 2 Back gr ound On J uly 29, 200 8 , pol ic e off ic er M ik e Sanc hezobs er v ed Patterson w alk ing
w estb oun d on So uth w est Fou rth Avenue on the road’s surface. The re w ere no sidew alks adja centto tha t part of

the stree t. Rathe r than walk on the left side of the surface to face oncomi ng traff ic , Pa tterson w alk ed on the ri g ht si de w it h the traff icto his bac k. Bel iev ing thi s t o be a v iol ati on of an Amar il lo munic ipa l ordin ance, Sanc hez sto pped Patt erson and asked for ident if ication . Patte rson ha d no ne o n his perso n. T he o f f icer decide d to pla ce Pat terson in h is squad ca r while he a ttem pte d to de term ine his iden tity and subject ed h im to a pat- dow n s earch before d oin g so . Addi ti onal ly , Pa tterson cons ented to the search of his poc ket s. The l atter rev eal ed th e presenc e of marijua na. 1 Pat terso n m o ve d to sup press discovery of the con traba nd b y

conte ndin g tha t his initial det ent ion w as un lawf ul. T hat is, he b elieved tha t the of f icer lacked bo th reaso nab le
sus pic ion and probabl e c ause to s top h im a s he w alk ed on the s treet. This al leg edl y w as so becau se the o rd ina nce the off ic er rel ied upon to ini ti ate the s top was ina ppl ic abl e. The tr ial co urt ag re ed. Standa rd

of Rev iew T he sta nda rd by w hich w e revi ew the trial court’s ruling on a m otion to suppress is setforth i n For

d v . St ate, 158 S.W .3d 488 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05). Altho ugh w e af ford de feren c e to t he t r i al c ou rt’ s i nt er pret at i on o f hi s to r i c al facts , w e do n otg i v e th e s am e deferenc e to it s a ppl ic ati on or i nter pretati on of the law

. Id. at 49 3.S e e g e n e ra ll y G o u d e a u v . S ta te , 20 9 S

. W

. 3 d 7 13, 716 ( T ex. App.
– H ou s t on [ 14 t h D i s t

. ] 20 06 , no pe t

. ); 2 U n i te dS ta te s v . D e lfin -C o lin a , 4 6 4 F .3 d 3 9 2 , 3 9 9 (3 rd C i r. 2 0 0 6 ); U ni t edS t ates v. M i ll er, 146 F. 3d 2 74, 279 (5t h C i r. 19 98 ) ( ad dre s s i ng effec t of m i s t ak e o f l aw on offi c er’ s reas on ab l e s us pi c i on ). 3 Ana lysis Sanc heztes ti fied th at he s topped Patt erson for v iol ati ng an A mari ll o muni ci pal ordina nce prohibiting one f rom w alking in the street w ith his back to traf f ic. The ordinan ce in dis pute sta ted t hat: “ W here s ide w alk s a re not prov ide d any pedes tr ian wa lki n g al ong and upo n a h ig hw ay

sh all w hen pos si ble w a lk only on t he l eft si de of the ro adw ay or i ts shou lder facing app roach ing traff ic.” A M AR I LLO , T EX ., M UN
. C OD E ch. 16- 3 , art. VII, §16- 3- 313 (b) (2006). Add itiona lly , the term “h ig h way” w as de f ined in the ordin ance as: “A hig hw ay di v ide d i nto tw o ( 2) roadw a ys by l eav ing an i nter

v eni ng sp ace, or

by a ph y si cal barrier, o r b y a c learlyindicate d divi ding section between th e tw o (2) roadway s.” Id. ar t. VII, §16- 3- 2 (1 988)

. Beca use SouthwestF our th Av enue di d nothav e any su ch int er

v eni ng space , physical b arrier, o r clea rly in dicate d divi der, the t rial cou rt dete rmine d tha t the traf f ic law reli ed on by the off ic er w as ina ppl ic abl e and, therefore, he had no l eg it imat e bas is for sto ppi ng Patterson. 2 In ruling as it did, the trial court imp licitly rejected the St ate ’s conte ntion that , w hile the loc al ordin ance may not appl y , a Tex as sta tute re g ula ti ng the same matter did. T he Tex as sta tute not o nly

made i t i ll eg al to walk

atop a hi g hw ay ’s sur

face w it h one’ s b ack

to traff ic w hen no si dew alk is av ail abl e, T EX
. T R ANSP
. C OD E A NN . §§5 52.006( a) -( b) ( Ver non Supp. 2009) , but also defined “hi g hw ay ” di fferentl y . Unde r the s tate code, “ hig hw ay ” meant “the wi dth between th e bo und arylines of a p u b li c ly m a in taine d w ay any part of w hich is ope n to th e pu blic for v eh ic u la r t ra vel.” Id. §541.30 2( 5) ( Ver non 199 9)

. Unl ik e the l ocal4

ordin ance, the sta te de finit ion sa y s n othi ng about a need for the p re senc e of an i nter v eni ng space , physical barrier, or cl early indicat ed divi der. S o, w hile it ma y be tha t Patt erson did notv iolate th e o rd in a nce, the of f icer purpo rtedly had reaso nab le suspicion or probab le
caus e to bel iev e that the Transpo rt ati on C ode prov is ion w as v iol ated, and, therefore, he had bas is to under

tak e the dete nti on. W e ag re e w it h the prosec uti on. It has long bee n true that a traf f ic v iolation can constitu te a reaso nab le basis for a detent ion

. W

hr en v . U nited St ates, 517 U .S. 806, 810, 116 S. Ct . 176 9, 17 72, 1 35 L. Ed.2d 89 ( 1996)

. Indeed, reason abl e s uspi ci on th at suc h a v iol ati on oc cur re d per mits an o ff ic er to s top t he s uspect. Byne s v . St ate , No

. 0 7 -0 8 -0 2 0 7 -C R, 2 0 0 9 W L 1 1 0 7 9 8 7 , a t*2 (T e x. App.–A mari ll o A p ril 2 4 , 200 9, no pet. ) (mem. op., not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) ; see Gar ci a v . St ate, 43 S.W .3d 527 , 5 3 0 ( T ex. C rim. App . 200 1) (holding thatreason able
sus pic ion does n o t re q uire abs olu te c ertai nty thatan o ffense w as commi tted)

. And, b e c a u s e t h e p re s e n c e o f re a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n is a n o bje c t ive s t a n d a rd , t h e s u bje ct ive i n t e n t o f t h e p o l i c e o ffi c e r u n d e rt a k i n g t h e s t o p i s i r re l e v ant. Ga rci a v . St ate, 43 S. W .3d at 53 0. In other

w ords, the subj ect iv e reas ons uttered bythe off ic er to leg it imi z e the st op hav e no bear ing on t he out come i f the total ity of t he ci rc umstan ces nonethe les s w oul d l ead a pol ic e off ic er

to re asona bly

su spect t hat c ri me is afoot. Id. at 530; accord , Single ton v. State, 91 S. W .3d 342 , 347 (Tex. App. –T exarkana 20 02, no pe t.) (noting thatan objectively
v ali d s top c an be uphel d ev en thoug h itw as made for the w ro ng reason ); Rus s v . St ate, No. 02- 05- 270- CR , 200 6 W L 66872 9, at*3 n.4 (Tex . App.–F ort W orth M arch 16, 2 006, pet. ref ’d) (mem . op. , notdesignate d for pub lication) ( n o t in g t h at th e trial court ne ed n ot limit it s rev iew

to the v iol ati ons the o ff ic er ci ted i n ex ecut ing the sto p) ; Ar ri aga v . St ate, No. 03-5

03- 00097- CR , 20 0 3 W L 22023 577, at * 2 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n Aug ust29, 2003, no pet .) (mem. op., not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( sta ti ng the same)

. Here, t he tr ial co urt ex press ly found that 1) Patt erson w as “walk ing on the ri g ht s ide of the roadw ay

faci ng aw ay

from app ro achi ng traff ic ” and 2)there w ere “ no s ide w alk s, lan e mark ing s, or

cu rb s o n [t he] p orti on” of the s treet. Gi v en th at §§ 552.006 (a )- (b ) of the Tex as Trans por

tati on C ode mandated that w here the re w as no s ide w alk , “ a pedes tr ian w alk ing alo ng and on a hig hw ay shall if possi ble w alk

on . . . t he l eft si de of the ro adw ay ” or on “ the sh oul der

. . . faci ng onc oming traff ic ” and Pa tterson did nei ther , c ircums tanc es ex is ted
w hich allowed an o f

f icer to reason ably conclu de th at Pa tterso n ha d com mitt ed a traf f ic offense. I t di d notmatte r that the o ff ic er at bar i nit ial ly i ndi cat ed that he based the sto p upo n w hatultima tely app eare d to be an ina pplicab le mu nicipal ordin ance . Again, this is
so beca use th e to ta l i ty o f t he c i rc um s ta nc es w as e no ug h to c rea te b ot h prob ab l e c au se and reason abl e s uspi ci on to bel iev e tha t §55 2.006 of the Transpo rt ati on Cod e had been
v iol ated. To the extent Patterson sug g est s t hat A mari ll o’s ordin ance superceded §552. 006, he is mista ken. Ou r legislature decla red tha t a “local a uth oritym ay no t ena ct or enforce an ordin ance or

r ule thatc o n f lic ts w it h” su bti tl e C of ti tl e 7 o f the Tra nspor tati on C ode “u nle ss ex press ly

au th o rize d by ” that same s ubti tl e. T EX
. T R ANSP
. C OD E A NN
. §542. 201 ( V e r n o n 1 9 9 9 )

. A

m u n i c i p a l i ty , s u c h a s t h e C i ty of A ma r i l l o , fal l s w i t h i n t h e u mb re l l a o f a “local a uth ority .” Id. §541.00 2( 3) (A ). Fur ther more, §552.00 6 appea rs under su bti tl e C of ti tl e 7 o f the Tra nspor

tati on C ode. So, §542. 201 c ontrols at bar

. Al so, Amar il lo’ s d efini ti on of “ hig hw ay ” can be read as confli cti ng w it h the defini ti on of the s ame ter m menti oned i n §541. 302( 5) of the Transpo rt ati on C ode. That is , w hil e theW e do no t i gn ore Pat t er son’ s cont ent i on t hat §55 2. 006 appl i es on l y t o r oadway s i n whi ch t he 3 bound ar i es ar e m ar k ed, and, beca use t he st r eet i n qu est i on h ad n o cur bs orl ane m ar k i ngs, t her e wer e no bound ar y l i nes. Not hi ng i n t he p l ai n l angua ge o ft he st at ut e i ndi cat es t hat cur bs orl ane m ar k i ngs a r e r equi r ed fo r a ro a d to b e d e e m e d a h i g h w a y , a n d w e o p t n o t t o re a d i n w h a t t h e l e g i s l a tu re l e ft o u t. 6 latter prohi bit s walk ing w it h one’ s b ack to traff ic , t he former

does not so lon g as there i s n o int er v eni ng sp ace, physi cal bar ri er , or cl ear ly mark ed div ide r on the roadw ay . This l eads
us to c oncl ude, espec ial ly si nce w e hav e been ci ted to nothi ng in subt it le C of t it le 7 of the T ra n s p o rt a t io n Co d e in d ic a t in g o t h e rwi s e , t h a tA m a ri ll o ’s p ro vis io n m u s tgi ve wa y. 3 Accordin gly , the trial court erred in grant ing the mo tion to supp ress. So, w e reverse that order

and re mand the ca use for furt her proceed ing s.

Br ian Qui nn C hie f Just ic e Publ is h.