Erick Lionel Miller v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14760
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Officer Kevin Cooke observed an SUV drifting and briefly straddling the lane marker while traveling northbound on US‑59; his dashcam corroborated the drifting over several hundred feet.
- Cooke, with ~21 years’ experience, testified he stopped the vehicle to "check the welfare" of the driver because the drifting could indicate sleep, intoxication, or overmedication.
- After the stop, occupants gave inconsistent stories; a search uncovered ~11 ounces of cocaine hidden in the spare tire.
- Appellant (a passenger) moved to suppress evidence, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion; the trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal, appellant argued the stop violated the Fourth Amendment and that Cooke was not performing a valid community‑caretaking function. The majority affirmed the denial; a dissent would have reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Appellant: brief drifting/straddling did not show an unsafe lane violation or other articulable facts to suspect criminal activity | State/Cooke: drifting over lane markers, combined with Cooke’s training/experience, reasonably suggested intoxication/impairment and justified the stop | Majority: Stop was supported by reasonable suspicion of impairment; suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether the stop was a valid community‑caretaking stop | Appellant: stop was investigative detention lacking caretaking justification | State: Cooke acted to check driver welfare (community caretaking) consistent with observed driving | Majority: Did not decide this issue because reasonable suspicion finding resolved the case; implied caretaking testimony not necessary to affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (investigative stop requires reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Martinez v. State, 348 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (view evidence in light most favorable to trial court’s ruling)
- Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (uphold trial court if correct under any theory supported by record)
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts plus rational inferences)
- Curtis v. State, 238 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (officer experience plus observed weaving can establish reasonable suspicion of intoxication)
- Gajewski v. State, 944 S.W.2d 450 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (weaving between lanes can justify temporary stop to investigate intoxication)
- Lewis v. State, 664 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (passengers may challenge legality of a vehicle stop)