Foster v. State
2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1616
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2010Background
- Foster charged with Class B misdemeanor DWI; pled nolo contendere after suppression denial; sentenced to 18 months of community supervision.
- Suppression hearing: at 1:30 a.m. near Sixth Street bar district, Detective Thomas observed Foster’s vehicle lurching and tailing another car.
- Thomas detained Foster due to unsafe driving and late-night location; officers smelled alcohol and arrested after field sobriety tests.
- Trial court found reasonable suspicion based on time, location, and erratic driving; no explicit timing of detention findings in record.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding no reasonable suspicion and applying an invalid standard; Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review.
- Court ultimately held there was reasonable suspicion under totality of circumstances and reversed the Court of Appeals, affirming trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate standard used was proper for reasonable suspicion | Foster argues the 'as consistent with innocence' standard was improper | State contends the totality of circumstances supported detention | Standard rejected; detention supported by totality of circumstances |
| Whether the trial court’s implied factual findings deserve deference | Foster argues trial findings should control | State argues trial court findings were properly weighed | Unnecessary to address; first issue controls; Court affirms trial ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis v. State, 238 S.W.3d 376 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (time and location relevant to reasonable suspicion; rejects 'innocent activity' test)
- Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (reaffirmed totality-of-the-circumstances approach for Terry stops)
- Sokolow v. United States, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (requires modest level of objective justification for stops)
- Guzman v. State, 240 S.W.3d 362 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007) (fact-specific detention related to intoxication; distinguished fact pattern)
- Foster v. State, 297 S.W.3d 386 (Tex.App.-Austin 2009) (discussed as controlling in prior appellate reasoning; rejected standard)