Background

• Earl was stopped after turning left onto FM 1969 when Trooper Weems observed he cut the corner during the left turn.
• Weems testified Earl failed to enter and exit the intersection in a manner lawfully available to traffic, indicating a possible traffic violation.
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.101(b)(2) requires left turns to exit the intersection into a lane lawfully available to traffic in the new direction.
• Earl moved to suppress the stop, arguing the stop was based on an illegal traffic stop lacking reasonable suspicion.
• The court applied de novo review to the law and credibility determinations, with factual findings given deference if credibility-based.
• The court affirmed the judgment, holding Weems had a reasonable basis to suspect a traffic offense and thus a lawful stop.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (reasonable suspicion standard for investigative stops)
• Garcia v. State, 43 S.W.3d 527 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) (reasonable suspicion standard, traffic stop context)
• Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (requirements for reasonable basis for suspicion must be more than a hunch)
• Zervos v. State, 15 S.W.3d 146 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000) (traffic offense suspicion supports stop)
• Graves v. State, 307 S.W.3d 489 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2010) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
• Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (deference to trial court on factual credibility when reviewing law-to-fact questions)
• Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (credibility considerations in law-to-fact determinations)
• Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (application of law to fact questions involves credibility)