NO. 01-15-00140-CR 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE 

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 

BRA YAN JOSUE OLIVA-ARITA, Appellant 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law #1 

Galveston County, Texas 

Trial Court Case No. MD-0342858 

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT 

Salvador Faus 

Torres and Faus Law Filin 

1009 44th Street 

Galveston, Texas 77550 

( 409) 763-2978 

( 409) 763-3424 (fax) 

salfaus@gma.il.com 

SBN: 00785854 

U1-1b-UU140-.r.; 

FIRST COURT OF APPE, 

HOUSTON, TEX 

3/11/2015 4:10:51 F 

CHRISTOPHER PF 

CLEF 

ATtORNEY FOR APPELLANT 
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT 

The Appellant waives oral argument. 

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 

Parties and counsel in this case are as follows: 

I. BRAY AN JOSUE OLIV A-ARITA, appellant, represented at trial by Salvador 

Faus, 1009 44th Street, Galveston, Texas 77550 and represented on appeal by 

Salvador Faus, I 009 44th Street, Galveston, Texas 77550. 

2. The State of Texas, appellee, represented at trial by Lindsay Ricbatds1 

Assistant District Attorney, and on appeal by Rebecca Klaren, Criminal 

District Attorney for Galveston County, Texas, 600 59th Street, Galveston, 

Texas 77551. 

i 
CITATION TO THE RECORD 

Clerk's Record .......................................... C.R. (page) 

Reporter's Record .......................................... R.R. (page) 

ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Index of Authorities ........................................................................ .. iv-v 

S1:a.tement of the Case······························~···········~········................. 1 

Issues Presented. ...........•...........•......•...................•...•...•..•.........•...... -. 1-2 

St:a.tement ofFaru ·····························-:··················· .. ·······............. ... 2-4 

Summary of Argument for Issue Number One.......................... 5 

Argument in Support of Appellant's Issue Number One................... 5-7 

Summary of Argument for Issue Number Two.......................... 7 

Argument in Support of Appellant's Issue Number Two................ 8-11 

Conclusion and Pra.yer ................................................................. .. 11 

Certificate of Service········:·················································-:··········· 14 

iii 
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 

CASES 

Contraras v. State, 309 S. W.3d 168 

(Tex.App.- Amarillo 2010, pet. ref' d) .....•........................... 

Crawford v.d§tate, 355 S.W.3d 193 

(Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref' d) .......................... . 

Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240,287 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) ..... . 

Fordv. State, 158 S.W.3d 488,492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ........... .. 

Gonzalez-Gilando v. State, 306 S.W.3d 893 

(Tex.App.-Amarillo 2010, pet. ref' d) ................................... . 

Johnson y. State, 2012 WL 698894(Tex. App.Houston [ t4tl:t Dist.] 

PAGE 

6, 10 

9 

5 

8 

6, 10 

Nos. 14-10-00941-CR, 14-10-00942-CR, March 6, 2012) (Unpublished)... 6 

Klare v. State, 76 S.W.3d 68, 72 (Tex.App.Houston [141h Dist.] 

2002, pet:. ·ref d) •. • • I I I 1 I I. I I I I I I I I- • • • • •.• I • • • I I It I I I I II I I I I I I. I I • • • • • • • 'I I I I I s 

State y, Sheppard, 271 S.W.3d 281,287 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008)...... 5 

Short v. State, 2011 WL 3505611 (Tex. App.Beaumont 

No. 09-1 0-00489-CR, August l 0, 20 1 J ) (Unpublished). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8~ 9 

State v. Daniel, 446 S.W.3d 809 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 

2014, no pet.) ............................................. !l............................. 10 

iv 
CASES 

Tellez v. State, 2011 WL 3925627 (Tex. App. Beaumont No. 

09-10•00348-CR, August 24, 2011) (Unpublished) .................... . 

STATUTES 

Texas Transportation Code Section 601.053 (a) (1-7) ................ .. 

TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. §601.061 (Vernon 1999) .................. . 

CONSTITUTIONS 

Fourth Amendment- United States Constitution ....................... . 

Article l §9 of the Texas Constitution ...................................... . 

v 

PAGE 

9 

3 

6 

2 

2 
NO. 01·15·0014()-CR 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

CO:MES NOW, BRAY AN JOSUE OLIVA-ARITA, hereinafter referred to as 

"Appellant,'' and submits this brief pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Rules of 

APPella:te Procedure and would respectfully show as follows: 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

Appellant was charged by information and complaint with the offense of 

Driving While Intoxicated (C.R. 7, 8) 

On December 29, 2014, a hearing on a motion to suppress was held which was 

denied. (R..R. 1 ,39). On January 2, 2015, Appellant pleaded Nolo Contendere to the 

charge and a plea bargain was reached where appellanfs punishment was assessed at 

three (3) days County Jail and a $500.00 fine. (C.R., 53-54). The trial court certified 

Appellant's right to appeal the denial ofthe motion to suppress. (C.R. 52). 

ISSUES PRESENTED 

The trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion to suppress 

the evidence as follows: 

1 
1) The State of Texas failed to prove that the insurance database is a 

reliable informant in providing police officers with information 

regarding whether a vehicle has insurance; and 

2) A notice of "unconfmned" insurance, with no other specific 

information, is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion or 

probable cause for search and seizure under the 4th Amendment of 

the United States Constitution and Article 1 §9 of the Texas 

Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Appellant was charged by infonnation and complaint for the offense of 

Driving While Intoxicated alleged to have been committed on February 16, 2014 

(C.R., 2, 3). Appellant filed a Motion to Suppress any and all evidence of 

intoxication based on the illegality of the initial traffic stop for unconfirmed 

insurance. The State of Texas stipulated that this case involves a warrantless arrest. 

(R.R. 5). Therefore, the burden is on the State to prove a legal basis for the stop of 

Appellant. Officer Jose Lobo, with the Friendswood Police Department, was on 

patrol on the night of February 16. 2014 when he performed a routine license plate 

check on a silver two-door Honda. (R.R. 7) Officer Lobo testified that the license 

plate check showed Appellant's vehicle to have unconfmned insuta:nce. (R.R. 8, 13) 

2 
Officer Lobo testified that this "typically" means that the vehicle has no insurance. 

(R.R. 8)~ Officer Lobo testified that the appellant advised that he had no insurance 

because he recently purchased the vehicle (R.R. 11, 12, 13). At that point, Officer 

Lobo conducted a Driving While Intoxicated investigation (R.R 13). The DWI 

investigation culminated in Appellant's arrest for Driving While Intoxicated. 

Officer Lobo testified that he does not know who administers the insurance 

database. (RR. 14, 15) He does not know for what legislative purpose the insurance 

database was established. (RR. 15) Officer Lobo does not know the rate of false 

positive information the insurance database generates; wherein the database relays 

information to a patro] officer that the subject vehicle has unconfirmed insurance, 

when in fact the vehicle is insured. (R.R. 16) Officer Lobo acknowledged that the 

inso.rance database is not always accurate. (R.R. 20) Officer Lobo estimated from 

his personal experience that the database revealing unconfirmed insurance was 

correct around 75 percent ofthe time. (R.R. 16, 17) 

Officer Lobo testified he is not aware how long it takes the database to update 

a recent purchase of insurance. (R.R. 17, 22) Officer Lobo testified that he was not 

aware of the legal alternative means of obtaining motor vehicle insurance pursuant to 

Texas Transportation Code Section 601.053 (a) (1-7), such as a surety bond 

certificate, certificate of deposit with the comptro11er, certificate of deposit with the 

3 
appropriate county judge, or a certificate of self-insurance. (R.R. 18-20) Officer 

Lobo testified he does not know if these alternative means of establishing motor 

vehicle insurance are input into the insurance database. (R.R. 19) 

Officer Lobo testified that the when he checks a vehicle for insurance he 

receives one of three responses: I. Confirmed; 2. Unconfinned with accompanying 

information such as when the insurance expired, who was the insurance provider, and 

whether it has been expired more than 45 days; or 3. Unconfirmed. (R.R. 21, 22) 

After hearing the evidence and argument the trial court denied Appellant~ s 

Motion to Suppress. 

4 
SUMMARY OF AR~UMENT FOR ISSUE NUMBER ONE 

I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING 

APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE. 

Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to Driving While Intoxicated. The judge 

assessed appellant's punishment at assessed at three (3) days County Jail and a 

$500.00 fine. (C.R., 53-54) The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to 

suppress the initial traffic stop of the appellant on the basis of unconfirmed insurance 

because there is no proof of the operating history and reliability of the insurance 

database. 

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT'S ISSUE NUMBER ON~ 

Law enforcement personnel may briefly detain and investigate a person 

whey they have a reasonable suspicion that the person in involved in crimina] 

activity. State v. Sheppard, 271 S.W.3d 281, 287 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). The 

officer must be able to point to something that would 1ead a reasonable person to 

believe that the person, being detained was engaged in, had engaged in, or was 

about to engage in a criminal act. Klare v. State, 16 S.W.3d 68, 72 

(Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. rerd). Those articulable facts must 

amount to more than a mete hunch or suspicion. /)gvis v._State, 94 7 S. W.2d 240, 

287 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). 

5 
In the instant case, Officer Lobo stopped Appellant's vehicle on the basis 

that a check of his license plate through the insurance database came back 

unconfirmed. Drivers are required to maintain proof of financial responsibility to 

lawfully drive on public roads. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. §60l.061 

(Vernon 1999). Ofc. Lobo, based solely on his personal experience, testified that 

the insurance database is correct around 75% ofthe time. (R.R. 16, 17) Therefore, 

based on Officer Lobo's personal experience the database is incorrect around 25% 

of the time. Officer Lobo's testimony reveals he knows very little of the inner 

workings of the insurance database. In the case of Johnson v: State, 2012 WL 

698894(Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] Nos. 14-10-00941-CR, 14-10-00942-CR, 

March 6, 2012) (Unpublished), although decided on other grounds; reveals another 

instance where a police officer received a false positive on infonnation regarding 

unconfirmed insurance. 

The State did not present any evidence developing the source of the 

information comprising the database, illustrating the accuracy of the databa~e, 

establishing the timeliness of the information within the database, depicting how 

often those using the database were told that insurance was unconfmned, or 

proving that the program through which the database was accessed was even 

operating at the time. Ganzafez .. Gilando v. State, 306 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.App.-
Amarillo 2010, pet. ref' d). Other than Officer Lobo's anecdotal evidence, the State 

did not present any evidence demonstrating the reasonableness of police reliance 

on the information in the insurance database, also known as the Financial 

Responsibility Verification Program. Contraras v. State, 309 S.W.3d 168 

(Tex.App.- Amarillo 2010, pet. refd). 

Without the State presenting evidence that the insurance database is credible 

and reliable, the insurance database is the equivalent of an anonymous informant, 

which, without corroborating information, cannot be the sole basis of an 

investigative detention. Therefore, the trial court abused its' discretion in denying 

appellant's motion to suppress. 

SUMMARY OF ARGIJN(ENT FOR ISSVE NUMBER TWO 

2. THE 1RIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING 

APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE. 

The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress the initial traffic 

stop of the appellant on the basis of a response from the insurance database of 

"unconfirmed" insurance, without any accompanying corroborating information. 

This response does not provide sufficient specific, articulable facts to suppon 

reasonable suspicion or probable cause for an investigative detention. 

7 
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT'S ISSUE NUMBER TWO 

A response of ''unconfirtned" insurance alone is not sufficient to create 

reasonable suspicion to justify the investigative detention of Appellant. A police 

officer conducts a lawful temporary detention when he has reasonable suspicion to 

believe that an individual is violating the law. Ford v. State, I 58 S. W.3d 488, 492 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). It is uncontroverted that Officer Lobo based his stop of 

Appellant's vehicle upon a response of unconfirmed insurance from the insurance 

database. 

Officer Lobo's testimony reveals that he receives three possible responses 

when checking a vehicle for insurance: 1. Confinned; 2. Unconfirmed with 

accompanying information such as when the insurance expired, who was the 

insurance provider, and whether it has been expired more than 45 days; or 3. 

Unconfirmed. (R.R. 21, 22) Similarly, in Short v. State, 20I I WL 3505611 (Tex. 

App. Beaumont No. 09-1 0-00489-CR, August 10, 2011) (Unpublished), the 

officer in that case testified that these three responses are common from the 

insurance database. In contrast to this case, the arresting officer in the Short case, 

received information that Mr. Short was driving a vehicle that showed insura.rtce 

coverage was ''unconfirmed for 45 days or more and expired.·~ IQ. The arresting 

officer further testified that a report of unconfittned with no information listed 

8 
"typically mean_s that Department of Insurance is unable to confirm one way or the 

other, and they don't have any information to support that finding." Id. The 

arresting officer in Short further testified that he does not stop a vehicle whose 

return states unconfirmed with no information listed. Similarly, in Crawford y. 

State, 355 S.W.3d 193 (Tex.App.-Houston [lstDist.] 2011, pet. ref'd), this Court of 

Appeals found that when the respon_se from the insurance database yields specific 

information, such as the last insurance company, the policy number, and that the 

policy had expired more than 45 days before, that this is sufficient, specific, 

articulable information to justify reasonable suspicion and a subsequent 

investigative detention. Id at 197, 198. Lastly, Tellez v. State, 2011 WL 3925627 

(Tex. App. Beaumont No. 09-1 0-00348-CR, August 24, 2011) (Unpublished) also 

supports a stop when a check of a vehicle through the insurance database reveals 

unconfmned insurance with accompanying information to show that the insurance 

was expired. 

In contrast, to the specific articulable information seen in the Short, 

Crawford, and Tellez cases, in this case, the only evidence Officer Lobo received is 

that the insurance was unconfirmed on Appellant's vehicle, with no accompanying 

information. A response of unconfirmed insurance, with nothing more, is not 

sufficiently specific, articulable information to support reasonable suspicion to 

9 
justify an investigative detention. 

In State v. Daniel, 446 S.W.3d 809 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2014, no pet.), 

the sole basis of the stop was based on a database response that the insurance was 

unconfirmed. Id at 814. The San Antonio appellate Court in State v. Daniel found 

that this response alone is not sufficiently detailed and reliable evidence to support 

reasonable suspicion. Id at 815. 

Similarly, a response from the insurance database that the information 

regarding a vehicle's insurance is "not available" or the status was 

"undocumented" is not sufficient to prove that the stop was based on either 

reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Gonzalez~Gikmdo v. State, 306 S. W.3d 

893 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 201 0, pet. rer d); Contraras v. $_tate, 309 S. W.3d 168 

(Tex.App.- Amarillo 2010, pet. ref'd). 

The distinction in the case law precedent is very clear: A response from the 

insurance database of unconfirmed accompanied with specific information 

corroborating the response, supports reasonable suspicion. A response from the 

insurance database of unconfirmed with nothing more, as in the case at hand, is not 

enough to support reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop and detain. 

A response from the insurance database that insurance on a vehicle is 

"unconfirmed,n with no other accompanying information is not sufficiently 

10 

----'-------'~ -- - ~- ----~- --- ----- ---~ --------------~ 
detailed and reliable evidence to support reasonable .suspicion. After all, every 

citizen in the United States is walking around unconfirmed, that we may or may 

not have an arrest warrant, until the government stops you to confll111 your identity. 

To justify the intrusion ofthe State upon an individual's liberty solely on the basis 

of a vague, nebulous response from an unproven computer database is to venture 

into a dangerous world. The trial Court abused its' discretion in denying 

appellant's motion to suppress by fmding that a response of "unconfirmed" 

insurance a1one, with no specific infonnation accompanying the response, is 

sufficient articulable and specific facts to justify reasonable suspicion to stop and 

detain. 

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER 

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully asks that 

the judgment of the trial court be reversed and that a judgment of acquittal be entered 

and for such other and further relief to which Appellant may be justly entitled. 

11 
~~? SALVADORFAUS 

TORRES and FAUS LAW FIRM 

1009 44th Street 

Galveston, Texas 77550 

( 409) 763-2978 

(409) 763-3424 (fax) 

salfaus@gmail.com 

SBN: 00785854 

Attorney for Appellant 

CERTiFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

I certifY that the foregoing brief was prepared in Microsoft Word using 14 

point font for text, and that the brief contains 2,064 words. 

~~~ Salvador Fall!) 

CERTiFICATE OF SERYICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Brief for Appellant was handdelivered to Ms. Rebecca Klaren, Assistant District Attorney of Galveston County, 

Texas, 600 591h Street, Galveston, Texas 77551 and hand-delivered and/or mailed to 

Appellant in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on this the 

11th day of March, 2015. 

Salvador Faus 

12