Dunn, Kevin Dean
PD-1012-15
| Tex. App. | Aug 28, 2015Background
- Kevin Dean Dunn was stopped by Grapevine Police for a traffic offense—failure to maintain a single lane—at about 11:00 p.m. on August 24, 2012.
- Officer McClain testified the lane violation prompted the stop and that he also had a possible belief Dunn was intoxicated, based on time and Dunn’s driving away from the bar district.
- Dunn was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated after the officer detected alcohol on Dunn’s breath and Dunn refused field sobriety tests.
- Dunn moved to suppress the stop and any resulting evidence; the trial court denied the motion and the issue was submitted to a jury for the reasonableness of the stop.
- The State presented evidence including Officer McClain’s testimony and State Ex. 1; Dunn challenged the stop as lacking probable cause, arguing Whren v. United States required a higher standard for traffic stops.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by probable cause or only reasonable suspicion. | Dunn (the appellant) argues Whren requires probable cause for a traffic stop. | The State contends reasonable suspicion sufficed to justify the stop based on the lane violation. | Probable cause required; trial court erred in denying suppression. |
| Whether the jury instruction properly stated the burden of proof for initiating a stop or detention in a traffic case per Whren. | Dunn asserts the instruction should reflect probable cause as the standard. | The State argues the standard used was reasonable suspicion for a traffic offense. | Incorrect jury instruction; must reflect probable cause per Whren; error requiring reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes terry stop based on reasonable suspicion for investigative detention)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (motorist detention requires reasonable suspicion in automobile stops)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (probable cause generally governs automobile stops for traffic violations)
- Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998) (state failed to show safety or credibility to justify stop; lane violation context)
- Baldez v. State, 386 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (articulates probable cause standard for traffic stops in Texas)
- Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (Texas adherence to Whren on stop reasonableness)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984) (fundamental error for improper trial court charge under Article 36.14)
- Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (standard for reviewing trial court charges in criminal cases)
- Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (reiterates reasonable suspicion/probable causation standards in stops)