In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-18-00451-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 8

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1470804

Before Pittman, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

RANDY MANYVORN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a search-and-seizure case wherein Appellant Randy Manyvorn was 

convicted of driving while intoxicated. In a single issue, he complains that the trial 

court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the trial court’s finding of 

reasonable suspicion was not supported by sufficient facts. We affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Search and Seizure

During the evening of August 1, 2015, Pantego Police Officer Brian Martin 

determined by radar that a silver Acura sedan was traveling the opposite direction at a 

speed of eighty-seven miles per hour in a zone having a posted speed limit of fortyfive miles per hour. The dash camera of Martin’s patrol car shows that Martin 

stopped in the left lane at a red traffic signal, and after a vehicle approached from the 

opposite direction and continued past him, Martin activated his vehicle’s emergency 

lights and siren, turned to follow, and then stopped behind a silver Acura vehicle at an 

intersection displaying a red traffic signal. The recording shows that the sedan driver 

had stopped the vehicle past the stop line with the sedan’s rear tires located in the 

crosswalk and the front end of the vehicle in the intersection. When the traffic signal 

turned green, the driver proceeded through the intersection and drove for a short time 
3

before stopping. While calling in the plate number, Martin specified that the silver 

Acura had been traveling in excess of eighty-seven miles per hour. 

The dash camera video showed that after Martin initiated the stop, Officer 

Clayton Wolf of the Dalworthington Gardens Police Department responded to 

Martin’s call for backup. Martin asked the driver, Manyvorn, why he was traveling 

eighty-seven miles per hour, and Manyvorn stated that he was going home. When 

Martin told Manyvorn that he could not understand why he was traveling eighty-seven

miles per hour in a forty-five mile per hour zone, Manyvorn stated, “Okay. I 

understand that.” Manyvorn informed Martin that he was going home from a Texas 

Rangers game where he drank five 16-ounce beers. Martin administered standardized 

field sobriety tests and determined that Manyvorn was intoxicated. When Martin 

asked Manyvorn to identify his level of intoxication using a scale of zero-to-five, 

Manyvorn responded, “Seven.” Martin informed Manyvorn that he was under arrest 

for driving while intoxicated. 

In his affidavit in support of the search warrant for Manyvorn’s blood, Martin 

noted that he initiated the stop because Manyvorn was driving eighty-seven miles per 

hour on a road where the posted speed limit is forty-five miles per hour.1 The 

affidavit also contains a statement that at the time of the stop, Martin “believed that 

these facts, among others, possibly indicated that the suspect was committing the 

 

1Martin’s affidavit in support of the search warrant was admitted as evidence 

“for purposes of the record only” during the suppression hearing. 
4

following Transportation Code violations: Driving While Intoxicated[.]” Martin 

added that Manyvorn had informed him that he “always drives 87 mph in a 45 mph 

zone” and had “consumed “[five to six 16-ounce] [b]eers at the Ranger Baseball 

Game[,]” and when Martin asked Manyvorn to identify “on a scale of ‘0-5’ of 

intoxication, where do you [f]eel your [l]evel of intoxication is[,] Manyvorn said, ‘7’.” 

Martin noted that, by his silence, Manyvorn had refused to provide a requested 

sample of breath or blood. After securing a search warrant, a sample of Manyvorn’s 

blood was obtained and tested. Manyvorn’s blood sample registered a blood alcohol 

concentration of .105. 

B. Motion to Suppress 

Manyvorn was charged with the offense of driving while intoxicated. See Tex. 

Penal Code Ann. §§ 49.01(2)(B), 49.04. Prior to trial, Manyvorn filed a motion to 

suppress evidence on the basis that Martin lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his 

vehicle for speeding, lacked probable cause to arrest him, and had illegally and 

improperly obtained his blood which was the primary incriminatory evidence to be 

used against him. 

The trial court heard the suppression motion on the day of trial before 

empaneling the jury. Wolf and Pantego Police Department Investigator Shelli 

Godbold testified during the suppression hearing and at trial. Martin, who was no 

longer working with the police department, was not available on the day of trial and 

was traveling out of state. 
5

Godbold, a twenty-year police veteran, authenticated Martin’s dash camera

recording, which was published to the trial court. Godbold had not been present 

during the stop but had watched Martin’s dash camera recording and observed that a 

vehicle in the far left lane was travelling faster than the limit established in the fortyfive mile per hour zone. Godbold did not know how fast the vehicle had been 

traveling and was unable to testify regarding the radar equipment used or Martin’s 

training on the use of the equipment. However, she agreed that the driver of the 

sedan had committed a traffic violation by stopping “in the intersection across the 

crosswalk.” Godbold understood that Martin had stopped the vehicle because of the 

speeding violation rather than the “stop-line violation” and agreed that the dash 

camera recording included no comment or discussion regarding Manyvorn’s failure to 

stop at the stop line. Godbold was unable to discern the color of the speeding vehicle 

as it passed Martin before he activated his lights and siren. From the recording, 

Godbold could not identify whether any of the several cars at the stop signal was the 

vehicle that Martin had observed speeding, and she had no personal knowledge of the 

events of August 1, 2015. She agreed that she could not identify a reason for Martin 

to initiate the stop other than for the alleged speed-limit violation but stated that the 

stop-line violation provided an objectively reasonable basis for stopping the vehicle. 

Based on the recorded conversations between Martin and Manyvorn, Godbold 

believed the correct vehicle was stopped but agreed that she did not hear Manyvorn 

admit on the recording that he had been speeding. 
6

Wolf, a certified peace officer for more than eleven years, identified Manyvorn 

as the person involved in the traffic stop. Wolf confirmed that the posted speed limit 

in the area where Manyvorn was stopped is forty-five miles per hour and agreed that 

the dash camera recording accurately depicted what had occurred. When Wolf 

arrived on the scene of the stop, he did not know the basis of Martin’s reasonable 

suspicion for the stop or whether Martin had established probable cause for an arrest. 

It was during the stop that Wolf learned Manyvorn had been driving the sedan at a 

speed that exceeded the posted limit. After reviewing the dash camera recording, 

Wolf described the color of the speeding vehicle as being light, such as white or silver, 

but not dark. Wolf admitted that he was unable to identify which of the vehicles at 

the stop light was the speeding vehicle depicted on the dash camera video and could 

not confirm the speed of the vehicle while it was traveling. While on scene, Wolf did 

not recall whether there was any issue involving Manyvorn’s failure to stop at the stop 

line at the traffic-signal intersection. 

The trial court indicated from the bench that it would grant Manyvorn’s 

suppression motion. At the State’s urging, the trial court agreed to recess and 

consider one or more cases tendered by the State in support of its challenge to the 

court’s initial determination that Manyvorn’s seizure had occurred when Martin first 

activated his emergency lights. The State noted that no seizure occurs until after there 

is a demonstrated yield to authority and argued that in this case no seizure occurred 

until Manyvorn had moved his vehicle to the side of the road. After returning from 
7

its recess, the trial court denied the motion to suppress, declaring that although there 

was no evidence of reasonable suspicion to stop Manyvorn’s vehicle for a speeding 

violation, reasonable suspicion existed to stop Manyvorn’s vehicle for stopping past 

the stop line, which is an independent violation of the Texas Transportation Code. 

See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 544.007(d).

C. Trial

After proceeding to trial, the jury convicted Manyvorn of the offense of driving 

while intoxicated. Manyvorn elected to have the trial court assess punishment. The 

trial court assessed punishment at confinement for ninety days, suspended the 

sentence, and placed Manyvorn on community supervision for fifteen months. 

D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

At Manyvorn’s request, the trial court entered written findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. The trial court determined:

1. Defendant, Randy Manyvorn[,] was stopped by Officer Martin of 

Pantego Police Department on August 1, 2015. Officer Wolf of 

Dalworthington Gardens Police Department served as backup on 

this traffic stop. Investigator Godbold is an investigator with 

Pantego Police Department’s CID division and later became 

familiar with the case.

2. Investigator Godbold and Officer Wolf both testified in the 

Motion to Suppress and were found to be credible witnesses.

State’s Exhibit 2-Dash Camera

3. Officer Martin’s vehicle was equipped with a dash camera 

mounted to the windshield.
8

4. The dash camera automatically turns on when an officer activates 

the overhead lights. The camera will also kickback one minute to 

record the minute leading up [to] the activation of the lights. The 

dash camera is capable of making accurate recordings.

5. The dash camera footage is kept on a secured system that does 

not allow for the videos to be altered or tampered.

6. The dash camera videos are made in real time as the events 

captured occur. The making and keeping of the dash camera 

footage is a regular business practice of the Pantego Police 

Department.

7. Investigator Godbold is a custodian of records for the dash 

camera videos and a qualified witness to testify to the business 

practice of the records being created, maintained, and the integrity 

preserved.

8. Officer Wolf confirmed that the video was an accurate depiction 

of the events that occurred during the August 1, 2015 traffic stop 

of Defendant.

Traffic Stop

9. The Defendant’s silver Acura was stopped on a section of 

Highway 303 where the speed limit is 45MPH.

10. Based on the training and experience of Officer Wolf and 

Investigator Godbold, a vehicle resembling the Defendant’s silver 

Acura was clearly traveling in excess of 45MPH. The speeding 

vehicle was light colored, either white or silver.

11. The vehicle clearly seen speeding on [State’s] Exhibit 2 was 

traveling the opposite direction of Officer Martin. Consequently, a 

U-turn was required to stop the vehicle and the camera inevitably 

lost sight of the speeding vehicle for a brief moment in time.

12. Officer Martin made a U-turn and simultaneously activated his 

overhead lights. He caught up to Defendant’s vehicle at a stop 

light. There were three or four total vehicles stopped at this stop 

light.
9

13. While at the stop light, Defendant failed to stop at the solid white 

stop line, but rather stopped in the crosswalk with the vehicle 

sticking out into the intersection.

14. Defendant did not yield to the overhead lights and pull over until 

after he drove through the intersection and continued for a short 

distance.

15. Officer Martin turned his overhead lights on at 1:00 on State’s 

exhibit 2 and pulls behind Defendant at the stop light at 1:33. At 

1:42, the stop light turns green and Defendant drives for some 

distance before pulling over for the traffic stop at 2:06 on the 

Dash Camera video in State’s exhibit 2.

Conclusions of law

16. In order to conduct a traffic stop, an officer needs reasonable 

suspicion. Reasonable suspicion exists when the officer has 

“specific articulable facts that, when combined with the rational 

inferences from those facts, would lead him to reasonably 

conclude that a particular person actually is, has been, or will be 

engaged in criminal activity.” Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 492 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

17. The reasonable suspicion analysis looks solely at whether an 

objective basis for a stop exists. Ford, 158 S.W.3d at 492.

18. There was reasonable suspicion to stop the silver Acura driven by 

the Defendant for stopping [past] the stop line at the crosswalk in 

violation of T[ransportation] C[ode §] 544.007(d).

19. There was reasonable suspicion to believe a vehicle was speeding 

in violation of T[ransportation] C[ode §] 545.351.

20. Defendant was not seized until he pulled over and yielded to 

Officer Martin’s show of authority. See California v. Hodari D.,

[499 U.S. 621, 626, 111 S. Ct. 1547, 1550–51 (1991)].
10

III. DISCUSSION

On appeal, Manyvorn contends the trial court should have granted his motion 

to suppress for lack of reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle for speeding and for 

stopping past the stop bar and should have suppressed evidence obtained as a result 

of the stop. Manyvorn emphasizes that Martin failed to appear and testify at trial, did 

not otherwise identify in his written sworn report any traffic violation other than 

speeding as a basis for forming reasonable suspicion to detain him, nor informed 

Wolf of any basis for forming reasonable suspicion for the detention.2 The State 

counters that the evidence before the trial court at the suppression hearing supported 

a reasonable inference that Martin had reasonable suspicion to stop Manyvorn for a 

traffic violation, including the stop-line violation. 

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

We apply a bifurcated standard of review to a trial court’s ruling on a motion to 

suppress evidence. Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); 

Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). In reviewing the trial 

court’s decision, we do not engage in our own factual review. Romero v. State, 

800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Best v. State, 118 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.). The trial judge is the sole trier of fact and judge of 

 

2Manyvorn included Martin’s sworn report as an exhibit to his motion for new 

trial and motion in arrest of judgment. The report was not admitted in evidence 

during the hearing on the motion to suppress. 
11

the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given their testimony. Wiede v. State, 

214 S.W.3d 17, 24–25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Therefore, we defer almost totally to 

the trial court’s rulings on (1) questions of historical fact, even if the trial court 

determined those facts on a basis other than evaluating credibility and demeanor, and 

(2) application-of-law-to-fact questions that turn on evaluating credibility and 

demeanor. Amador, 221 S.W.3d at 673; Montanez v. State, 195 S.W.3d 101, 108–09 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644, 652–53 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2002). But when application-of-law-to-fact questions do not turn on the witnesses’ 

credibility and demeanor, we review the trial court’s rulings on those questions 

de novo. Amador, 221 S.W.3d at 673; Estrada v. State, 154 S.W.3d 604, 607 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005); Johnson, 68 S.W.3d at 652–53. We review a trial court’s videotape-based 

determination of historical facts under the Guzman deferential standard. Montanez v. 

State, 195 S.W.3d 101, 108–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (holding that the deferential 

standard of review in Guzman applies to a trial court’s determination of historical facts 

when that determination is based on a videotape recording admitted into evidence at a 

suppression hearing). 

Stated another way, when reviewing the trial court’s ruling on a suppression 

motion, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the ruling. Wiede, 

214 S.W.3d at 24; State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808, 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). When 

the trial court makes explicit fact findings, we determine whether the evidence, when 

viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, supports those findings. 
12

Kelly, 204 S.W.3d at 818–19. We then review the trial court’s legal ruling de novo 

unless its explicit fact findings that are supported by the record are also dispositive of 

the legal ruling. Id. at 818. Even if the trial court gave the wrong reason for its ruling, 

we must uphold the ruling if it is both supported by the record and correct under any 

applicable legal theory. State v. Stevens, 235 S.W.3d 736, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); 

Armendariz v. State, 123 S.W.3d 401, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures 

by government officials. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Wiede, 214 S.W.3d at 24. A 

defendant seeking to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds bears the 

initial burden to produce some evidence that the government conducted a warrantless 

search or seizure that he has standing to contest. State v. Martinez, 569 S.W.3d 621, 

623-624 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (quoting Russell v. State, 717 S.W.2d 7, 9 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1986), disavowed in part on other grounds by Handy v. State, 189 S.W.3d 296, 299 n.2 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006)); Handy, 189 S.W.3d at 298–99; see, e.g., Rawlings v. Kentucky, 

448 U.S. 98, 104–05, 100 S. Ct. 2556, 2561 (1980). Once the defendant does so, the 

burden shifts to the State to prove either that the search or seizure was conducted 

pursuant to a warrant or, if warrantless, was otherwise reasonable. Martinez, 

569 S.W.3d at 624 (quoting Russell, 717 S.W.2d at 9); Amador, 221 S.W.3d at 672–73. 

A detention, as opposed to an arrest, may be justified on less than probable 

cause if a person is reasonably suspected of criminal activity based on specific, 

articulable facts. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880 (1968); Carmouche v. 
13

State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). An officer conducts a lawful 

temporary detention when he reasonably suspects that an individual is violating the 

law. Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ford, 158 S.W.3d at 492. 

Reasonable suspicion exists when, based on the totality of the circumstances, the 

officer has specific, articulable facts that, when combined with rational inferences 

from those facts, would lead him to reasonably conclude that a particular person is, 

has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. Ford, 158 S.W.3d at 492. This 

is an objective standard that disregards the detaining officer’s subjective intent and 

looks solely to whether the officer has an objective basis for the stop. Id.; see also State 

v. Duran, 396 S.W.3d 563, 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (“If the facts that the officer 

knows ‘at the inception of the detention’ support a finding of reasonable suspicion or 

probable cause to conduct a traffic stop, then it is irrelevant that the officer 

subjectively decided to stop the driver for a bad reason.”). 

B. Manyvorn’s Contentions

Manyvorn asserts that a traffic stop based on information not known to or 

noticed by an officer cannot support an initial detention, and that information that the 

officer either acquired or noticed after a detention or arrest cannot be considered in 

determining the existence of reasonable suspicion. See Duran, 396 S.W.3d at 569. He 

argues that Martin, who was alone at the time of the investigative traffic stop, did not 

have sufficient specific and articulable facts to establish reasonable suspicion to 

initially stop him for speeding or for any other reason and that Martin did not identify 
14

to Wolf any basis for forming reasonable suspicion. Because Martin did not testify at 

trial, Manyvorn contends the testimony of Wolf, who viewed Martin’s dash camera

recording in preparation for trial, was insufficient to establish the existence of a 

reasonable suspicion to justify Martin’s initial stop based on the stop-line traffic 

violation, which formed the basis of the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion. 

Moreover, Manyvorn argues that because Martin never identified the stop-line

violation as a basis for his stop, the evidence did not establish that Martin knew or 

was aware of the subsequent stop-line violation at the time that he stopped 

Manyvorn, and for this reason, the trial court should have granted the motion to 

suppress evidence that had been obtained as a result of the stop. Manyvorn prays that 

this court grant him relief, remand the case, and order suppression of the stop. 

C. Analysis

We find Manyvorn’s reliance on Duran under these facts to be unpersuasive. In 

that case, the detaining officer testified during the suppression hearing that after he 

observed Duran make a right turn from a far left lane, he turned to follow Duran. 

Duran, 396 S.W.3d at 567. The officer stated that he observed Duran’s vehicle briefly 

cross the center yellow stripe on the road, activated his emergency lights and siren to 

make a traffic stop, and after performing an investigation arrested Duran for driving 

while intoxicated. Id. The trial court found that the center-stripe violation played no 

part in the officer’s decision to stop Duran and that the officer was wrong about 

Duran’s turn being unlawful and granted Duran’s motion to suppress. Id. at 568. The 
15

State appealed the trial court’s ruling. Id. The court of appeals reversed and observed 

that the trial judge had focused on the officer’s subjective reasons for making the 

stop. Id. 

After granting Duran’s petition for discretionary review, the court of criminal 

appeals noted that a rationalization for a stop cannot be made based on information 

learned after the stop. Id. at 569–70. As an example, the court observed that if an 

officer believes a driver is speeding but later determines that he was wrong about the 

occurrence of the offense, the officer cannot later justify the stop by showing that a 

recording shows that the driver’s vehicle had a faulty tail light that the officer had not 

noticed before the stop. Id. at 570. The court of criminal appeals reaffirmed that

information an officer acquires after a detention or arrest cannot be considered in 

examining a stop. Id. However, the court also reiterated that a fact known to an 

officer before a stop, such as an observation that a driver is not wearing a seat belt, 

would support probable cause to stop the driver. Id. The court further observed:

If the facts that the officer knows “at the inception of the detention”

support a finding of reasonable suspicion or probable cause to conduct a 

traffic stop, then it is irrelevant that the officer subjectively decided to 

stop the driver for a bad reason. A good reason did exist, and the officer 

knew of that good reason at the time he made the stop. Id. 

Ultimately, in Duran, the court determined that whether the officer saw Duran’s 

center-stripe violation before the officer detained Duran was a fact to be decided by 

the trial judge rather than the courts of appeals or the court of criminal appeals, which
16

“must view the trial judge’s factual findings in the light most favorable to [the trial 

judge’s] ultimate conclusion.” Id. at 571–72. 

An investigative detention occurs when a person yields to the police officer’s 

show of authority under a reasonable belief that he is not free to leave. Crain v. State, 

315 S.W.3d 43, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Johnson v. State, 912 S.W.2d 227, 235 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1995)); see also Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 626, 111 S. Ct. at 1550–51 

(holding that a police pursuit in attempting to seize a person does not amount to a 

“seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment). Here, the trial court 

determined, and the evidence shows, that Manyvorn did not pull to the side of the 

road until after the stop-line violation. 

As Manyvorn notes, the State was required to show that Martin, at the time of 

detention, had specific articulable facts establishing reasonable suspicion to investigate

further. Martinez v. State, 348 S.W3d 919, 923 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). However, at a 

suppression hearing, the State is not required to show that a crime occurred prior to 

the officer’s investigative stop; rather, “it must elicit testimony showing sufficient facts 

to prove that reasonable suspicion existed that a particular person has engaged in, or 

soon will be engaging in, criminal activity.” Id. 

As noted, Martin was not present to testify during the suppression hearing. 

Relying on an unpublished opinion from this court, the State contends that when a 

detaining officer is not available to testify at trial, specific articulable facts known to 

the officer at the time of the stop to establish reasonable suspicion can be established 
17

by a video recording and may support a finding that the detaining officer had 

reasonable suspicion to stop the suspect. See Johnson v. State, No. 02-04-497-CR, 

2005 WL 3244272, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 1, 2005, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., 

not designated for publication). We agree.3 

In Johnson, the detaining officer, who initiated a stop of Johnson’s vehicle and 

ultimately arrested Johnson for the offense of driving while intoxicated, died before 

trial. Id. at *1. Johnson sought to suppress the officer’s dash camera recording of the 

stop. Id. At trial, the State authenticated the officer’s dash camera recording, and the 

trial court ruled that portions of the recording were admissible.4 Id. The dash camera 

recording showed the officer following Johnson’s vehicle, which was committing 

traffic violations by repeatedly swerving into adjoining lanes. Id. The recording 

showed the officer turn on his lights and initiate a stop. Id. After the officer 

conducted field sobriety tests, the recording documented that Johnson had failed the 

tests. Id. After being convicted of the offense of driving while intoxicated, Johnson 

argued that the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion was improper because 

the dash camera recording alone was insufficient to prove that the officer had 

 

3We also observe that an officer has probable cause to stop and arrest a driver 

if he sees the driver commit a traffic offense. State v. Gray, 158 S.W.3d 465, 469 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2005); see State v. Ballman, 157 S.W.3d 65, 70 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

2004, pet. ref’d).

4The Johnson trial court suppressed portions of the recording of “events that 

occurred in the intoxilyzer room” after the arrest. 2005 WL 3244272, at *1.
18

reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. Id. We held that the recording established 

reasonable suspicion to support the detaining officer’s stop of Johnson to investigate 

whether Johnson had committed the offense of driving while intoxicated, and that 

after Johnson failed the field sobriety tests, the officer possessed probable cause to 

arrest him for that offense. Id. at 2. Because the trial court did not err in denying 

Johnson’s motion to suppress, we affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and the court of 

criminal appeals subsequently refused Johnson’s petition for discretionary review. Id. 

Here and in Johnson, the detaining officers were not present to testify regarding 

the bases for the stop. Id. at *1. Other than the traffic violation shown on the 

recording, the only fact in this case that appears to differ from those in Johnson is that, 

unlike that case, here two officers who were not present when Martin initiated his 

stop of Manyvorn subsequently viewed Martin’s dash camera recording and testified 

at the suppression hearing. Godbold testified that the recording showed Manyvorn’s 

stop-line traffic violation while Wolf did not recall whether there was any issue 

regarding the stop-line violation. 

Apparently, no officer testified in Johnson. That difference does not render our 

Johnson analysis inapplicable to the present facts nor does it defeat the trial court’s 

conclusion that Martin possessed reasonable suspicion to stop Manyvorn. At a 

suppression hearing, hearsay information is sufficient to support a fact or an opinion. 

Castro v. State, 227 S.W.3d 737, 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Granados v. State,

85 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)). Although the officer who witnessed the 
19

traffic violation may provide more specific details in support of his reason for 

conducting the stop, “in the case of offenses requiring only an objective 

determination of whether the offense was indeed committed, the court does not need 

to know the subjective details of the stop from the officer’s standpoint in order to 

find that the stop was reasonable.” Castro, 227 S.W.3d at 743.

An operator of a vehicle facing only a steady red signal is required to stop at a 

clearly marked stop line. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 544.007(d). Here, Martin’s dash 

camera recording showed that Manyvorn failed to stop at the stop line in violation of 

Section 544.007(d). Id. Manyvorn’s commission of the stop-line violation in Martin’s 

view was a fact “available” to Martin prior to and at the time of Manyvorn’s 

detention. Crain, 315 S.W.3d at 52–53. Godbold also confirmed that Martin’s dash 

camera recording showed that Manyvorn had committed a traffic violation by failing 

to stop at the stop line. The dash camera recording shows that the stop-line violation 

occurred before Manyvorn yielded to Martin’s show of authority, that is before the 

investigative stop or detention occurred. See Crain, 315 S.W.3d at 52–53 (“In deciding 

whether reasonable suspicion existed [to conduct an investigative detention], we look 

at the facts available to the officer at the time of the detention.”). This evidence 

supports the conclusion that Martin possessed reasonable suspicion to stop 

Manyvorn’s vehicle for the stop-line traffic violation, which was committed in his 

presence. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 544.007(d); see Crain, 315 S.W.3d at 52–53; Ford, 

158 S.W.3d at 492. 
20

Having viewed the trial court’s findings of fact in the light most favorable to 

the ruling and its conclusions of law de novo and deferring to the trial court’s 

determination of historical facts, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying 

Manyvorn’s motion to suppress. See Montanez, 195 S.W.3d at 108–09; Kelly, 204 

S.W.3d at 818–19. We overrule Manyvorn’s sole issue on appeal.

IV. CONCLUSION

Having overruled Manyvorn’s sole issue on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: July 18, 2019