Opinion ID: 2791509
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Arresting Officer’s Mistake of Law

Text: In Texas, “[a]n operator intending to turn a vehicle right or left shall signal continuously for not less than the last 100 feet of movement of the vehicle before the turn.” TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 545.104(b). As we explain the government has not done so on appeal. Accordingly, the government has waived the argument. See United States v. Macias, 658 F.3d 509, 523 (5th Cir. 2011); see also Burnley v. City of San Antonio, 470 F.3d 189, 200 & n.10 (5th Cir. 2006) (applying waiver doctrine to appellee). Second, the government conceded at oral argument that, if the stop is deemed illegal, the evidence must be suppressed. See, e.g., United States v. Banks, 624 F.3d 261, 263 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2010) (declining to address issue conceded at oral argument). 4 Case: 13-50745 Document: 00512994045 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/06/2015 No. 13-50745 below, this requirement applies only to turns, not to lane changes. Officer Barrientos did not interpret the statute that narrowly, and his mistaken interpretation was not objectively reasonable. The Supreme Court recently discussed the effect of a mistake of law committed by a police officer who stopped a car for having only one working brake light; the officer did not realize that state law required only one working brake light. See Heien, 135 S. Ct. at 535. The Court determined that the mistake was reasonable based on two considerations. First, the statute contained at least some ambiguity because it referenced “rear lamps” multiple times. Id. at 540. Second, the state’s appellate courts had not previously addressed the issue. Id. As to this Texas statute, the Heien analysis compels the opposite conclusion. First, Section 545.104(b) is unambiguous. Its 100-foot requirement only applies to turns; lane changes are not mentioned. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 545.104(b). Furthermore, the statute elsewhere refers to turns and lane changes separately, thereby setting out a distinction between the two. See § 545.104(a). This distinction is further indicated by the Texas Driver’s Handbook, which defines a lane change as a “lateral maneuver moving the vehicle from one lane to another” and a turn as a “vehicle maneuver to change direction to the left or right.” See Mahaffey v. State, 316 S.W.3d 633, 641 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citations and quotations omitted). The former definition confirms that a lane change, as its name implies, occurs when moving from one lane to another. A “turn,” on the other hand, involves a change to a vehicle’s direction. The terms “turn” and “lane change,” therefore, signify distinct actions. Thus, Section 545.104(b), by its plain terms, does not apply to lane changes. 5 Case: 13-50745 Document: 00512994045 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/06/2015 No. 13-50745 Second, seven months prior to Alvarado-Zarza’s stop, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Mahaffey addressed the distinction between a turn and a lane change. In that case, a policeman mistakenly concluded that a driver was “turning” by moving out of a lane that was ending. See id. at 635-40. Although the court did not discuss Section 545.104(b)’s 100-foot requirement, it drew a clear distinction between a turn and other movements, including a lane change. See id. at 640-41 & nn.35, 43 & 46. The court deemed this distinction “plain[] and unambiguous.” Id. at 638. We interpret Mahaffey to be a rejection of Officer Barrientos’ view. Because the caselaw far predates the stop in this case, and because the statute facially gives no support to Officer Barrientos’ interpretation of the 100-foot requirement, we conclude that his mistake of law was not objectively reasonable.