Opinion ID: 854253
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Initial Stops

Text: Traffic stops constitute a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable we consider (1) “whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception,” and (2) “whether the officer’s subsequent actions were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the stop.” Id. A traffic stop is justified at its inception if an officer has “an objectively reasonable suspicion that some sort of illegal activity, such as a traffic violation, occurred, or is about to occur, before stopping the vehicle.” United States v. Banuelos–Romero, 597 F.3d 763, 766 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Lopez–Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 430 (5th Cir. 2005)). Thus, if the officer “can point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the search and seizure, the intrusion is lawful.” United States v. Santiago, 310 F.3d 7 Case: 11-11228 Document: 00512162491 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/04/2013 No. 11-11228 336, 340 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). This analysis “is necessarily fact-specific, and factors which by themselves may appear innocent, may in the aggregate rise to the level of reasonable suspicion.” Id. Here, the defendants argue that the initial stops by Trooper Dollar and Trooper Riefers were both unlawful because neither Wallstrum nor Bryant committed the offense of following too closely as defined by state law.3 As support, the defendants point to the testimony of their two expert witnesses: Cam Cope and Billy Teague. Cope, an expert in forensic accident reconstruction, and Teague, a retired law enforcement officer and former DPS Academy instructor, both relied on a video taken from Trooper Riefers’s patrol car that revealed the cars traveling down the highway shortly before Bryant was stopped. Based on his observations of the video, Cope testified that there was a distance of sixty to eighty feet between Wallstrum and Bryant’s car and that there was a slightly greater distance between Wallstrum and the SUV. Cope suggested that the vehicles were slowing down at the time because they were passing the traffic stop that Trooper Riefers was assisting on and opined that Bryant and Wallstrum were operating at a safe distance. Teague testified that after he viewed the video and applied the methods he had previously taught for determining distance, he determined that the cars were operating at a safe distance. Teague explained that troopers are taught to use reference points and also to verbally count “one 3 Texas Transportation Code section 545.062 provides as follows: An operator shall, if following another vehicle, maintain an assured clear distance between the two vehicles so that, considering the speed of the vehicles, traffic, and the conditions of the highway, the operator can safely stop without colliding with the preceding vehicle or veering into another vehicle, object, or person on or near the highway. Tex. Transp. Code § 545.062(a). 8 Case: 11-11228 Document: 00512162491 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/04/2013 No. 11-11228 one thousand,” “two one thousand,” to determine distance behind another vehicle. Trooper Dollar and Trooper Riefers offered their own description of the events. Trooper Dollar testified that it was a clear day when the stop occurred and that the three vehicles caught his eye because “the two passenger cars behind were []way too close for safety.” He stated that troopers are “trained day in and day out to look for traffic violations” and that following too closely was one such violation. To determine whether a car is following too closely, Trooper Dollar testified that he looks for a safe distance and also takes “into consideration the speed of that vehicle.” Because the three cars were traveling at highway speed, he determined that the space was too close for safety because they would not have been able to stop in time if there was a threat or if the car in front of them stopped. Trooper Dollar would not put a number on the distance between the cars but answered one inquiry by stating that it was closer to one hundred feet apart than ten feet apart. To support his stop, Trooper Riefers testified that the speed limit on Interstate 40 at that location was seventy miles per hour. When he saw the three cars pass, he determined that they were too close because “traveling at the speed limit,” they would not have been able to avoid a collision with the front vehicle. He further testified that there was “not enough room that another vehicle could safely occupy the space between them.” On cross-examination, Trooper Riefers testified that the video of the stop showed that there was a distance of sixty to ninety feet between the cars, which was about two or three highway dash marks. He explained that a safe distance for traveling at seventy miles per hour would be approximately three hundred feet because a normal reaction time for a vehicle to stop is about “a second and a half” and, “[a]t 70 miles an hour, a second and a half is 150 feet.” 9 Case: 11-11228 Document: 00512162491 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/04/2013 No. 11-11228 In analyzing the different stories offered, the magistrate judge credited the troopers’ testimony over that of the defendants’ witnesses. The magistrate judge noted that the video was not necessarily probative of the events because the troopers’ observations were not confined to what the camera recorded. Nevertheless, the magistrate judge determined that even if the video were relied upon, the defendant’s expert witness testimony was contradicted by the time counter accompanying the patrol car recording. Teague had testified that troopers are taught to count two seconds to determine a safe distance between cars, but the magistrate judge determined that the counter unquestionably showed that the cars were not separated by two seconds. When each car passed in front of a fixed reference point, only one second passed on the counter before the next car came. The magistrate judge determined that this video evidence confirmed Trooper Riefers testimony and also lent credibility to Trooper Dollar’s “scant testimony.”4 Both the Government and the defendants presented a permissible view of the evidence. When that occurs, “the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Gillyard, 261 F.3d at 509 (quoting Anderson, 470 U.S. at 574). As a result, we affirm the district court’s determination that the initial stop was lawful. 4 Defendants argue that Trooper Dollar’s testimony was not sufficient to establish the “articulable facts” necessary to support reasonable suspicion and thus the magistrate judge erred in accepting it. While Trooper Dollar’s testimony was sparse, he did articulate facts to support his reasonable suspicion. Specifically, he acknowledged the conditions during the day of the stop, stated that the cars were traveling at “highway speed,” and explained that he takes the speed of the vehicles into account to determine if they would be able to stop in time to avoid a collision. He also testified that the cars were closer to one hundred feet apart than ten feet apart, which is consistent with Trooper Riefers’s testimony and the video evidence. These facts are consistent with other testimony that has been held sufficient to justify reasonable suspicion. Cf. United States v. Flores–Manjarez, 421 F. App’x 407, 409 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished) (holding that the officer provided specific, articulable facts to support reasonable suspicion when he testified that the conditions were wet and that the vehicles were less than two car lengths apart). 10 Case: 11-11228 Document: 00512162491 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/04/2013 No. 11-11228