Brian Vincent Robinson v. State
03-15-00098-CR
| Tex. App. | May 28, 2015Background
- On Sept. 25, 2012, Sgt. Tyler McEowen (Killeen PD) was told a particular car had been linked to narcotics trafficking and had an expired temporary tag; he was asked to stop it if he observed a traffic violation.
- McEowen followed the car and observed the driver fail to signal continuously for at least 100 feet before turning on two occasions, in alleged violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.104(b).
- McEowen stopped the vehicle and identified Brian Vincent Robinson as the driver; Robinson did not have his license on him and McEowen’s records showed Robinson’s license was suspended.
- Robinson was arrested for driving while license suspended; during a search incident to arrest the officer found a small baggie later identified as 0.04 grams of cocaine.
- Robinson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that applying § 545.104(b) to every turn produces absurd results and therefore the traffic stop was unlawful; the trial court denied the motion, finding the stop lawful and the search incident to a valid arrest.
- The State argues (in its appellate brief) that § 545.104(b) is clear and unambiguous, provides a bright-line rule for enforcement, and supported the lawful stop, arrest, and consequent search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying Tex. Transp. Code § 545.104(b) to every turn leads to an absurd result invalidating the traffic stop | Robinson: a literal application (signal continuously for 100 ft before every turn) is impractical and absurd; occasional, spontaneous turns should not be criminalized | State: statute's plain language is clear and unambiguous; it creates a bright-line rule—no exceptions; failure to signal for 100 ft is a traffic violation justifying a stop | Trial court found no abuse of discretion: stop lawful for failure to signal; arrest lawful for suspended license; search incident to arrest valid (motion to suppress denied) |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Texas Crim. App. 1991) (apply clear statutory language when unambiguous)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Texas Crim. App. 2000) (bifurcated review of suppression rulings; deference to trial court fact findings)
- Estrada v. State, 154 S.W.3d 604 (Texas Crim. App. 2005) (appellate standard on mixed questions of law and fact in suppression rulings)
- Weightman v. State, 975 S.W.2d 621 (Texas Crim. App. 1998) (courts should not subtract from clear statutory text)
- Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538 (Texas Crim. App. 2000) (officer may stop when traffic violation observed in the officer’s view)
- State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667 (Texas Crim. App. 2011) (remanding to determine whether a stop was made pursuant to § 545.104)
- Hargrove v. State, 40 S.W.3d 556 (Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, rev. ref.) (§ 545.104 is not unconstitutionally vague and cannot be construed as optional)
- Krug v. State, 86 S.W.3d 764 (El Paso [8th Dist.] 2002, rev. ref.) (failure to signal as required by § 545.104 supports traffic stop)