Court Opinion

ID: 9630537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:13:09.82911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:39.957206
License: Public Domain

BRISTER, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment and write separately only to note my disagreement with Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867 (Tex.App. — Austin 1998, pet. ref'd). I do not believe late-night drivers are entitled to one free “weave” before they may be stopped temporarily for suspicion of intoxication.
A growing number of appellate opinions distinguish Hernandez, allowing a traffic stop if, rather than crossing a broken white traffic line once, the driver:
• Crosses a double yellow line once. Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Chang, 994 S.W.2d 875, 878 (Tex.App. — Austin 1999, no pet.); Griffin v. State, 54 S.W.3d 820, 823 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 2001, pet. filed).
• Crosses a shoulder stripe twice, Le Card v. State, No. 01-98-00171-CR, 1999 WL 1018162, at *8 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. filed), or three times, Guevara v. State, No. 13-00-755-CR, 2001 WL 1002468, at *3 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). •
• Drives up speedily and crosses the shoulder stripe once. Benavides v. State, No. 14-99-00478-CR, 2001 WL 101787 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 8, 2001, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication), 2001 WL 101787, at *2.
• Drives slightly above the speed limit and straddles a lane marker briefly. Adame v. State, No. 03-00-00442-CR, 2001 WL 359230 (Tex.App.— Austin April 12, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication), 2001 WL 359230, at *3.
These kinds of distinctions make it difficult for police officers to know when they can stop and investigate a potential drunk driver. I see no reason to make this complicated. There may be good explanations, but there are no good excuses for weaving out of one’s lane late at night.
I recognize that a panel of this Court has agreed with Hernandez, although distinguishing it in that case. See Benavides v. State, No. 14-99-00478-CR, 2001 WL 101787 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 8, 2001, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication), 2001 WL 101787, at *2. And I agree with the majority the additional observations by the officer in this case again make Hernandez irrelevant. Nevertheless, I believe it is time to stop distinguishing Hernandez and start disagreeing with it.