Court Opinion

ID: 9632382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:12:43.443991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:49.518068
License: Public Domain

*148RONALD L. WALKER, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I concur with both the reasoning and result of the majority opinion. This concurrence is to point out the distinction between the facts of the present case and those in Ehrhart v. State, 9 S.W.3d 929 (Tex.App. — Beaumont 2000, no pet. h.), wherein I dissented. In the present ease, the evidence produced by the Sate may show that safe driving practice dictates signaling when exiting the freeway, however to say that Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 545.103 or 545.104 requires same is a stretch of the plain meaning of those statutes. In Ehrhart, I believe the facts show clear authorization to stop the accused for suspicion that Ehrhart was driving while intoxicated. Not so in the present case.