Gendron, Jeffrey
PD-0281-15
| Tex. App. | Apr 2, 2015Background
- Officer stopped Jeffrey Grendon for an alleged violation of Tex. Trans. Code § 545.060 (failure to drive as nearly as practicable within a single lane).
- The State urged a disjunctive reading of § 545.060: a violation occurs if a driver either (1) fails to stay within a lane as nearly as practicable or (2) moves lanes unsafely. Respondent argued the statute is conjunctive and requires both conditions.
- The officer testified the stop was for the § 545.060 offense (not for suspected DWI), but his testimony conflicted with dash‑cam video; the trial court found the officer not credible.
- The court of appeals adopted the one‑method (conjunctive) interpretation and found the record did not support a lawful traffic stop under § 545.060.
- Respondent asked the Court of Criminal Appeals to refuse the State’s petition for discretionary review; the brief argues the State’s public‑policy claim (that serious crimes go unsolved under the one‑method reading) is unpersuasive when balanced against the rules’ safety purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper interpretation of Tex. Trans. Code § 545.060 | Section is disjunctive: violation if either not driving as nearly as practicable or movement is unsafe | Section is conjunctive: violation only if driver fails to stay as nearly as practicable and the movement cannot be made safely | Court of appeals treated the statute as conjunctive; respondent asks CCA to deny review of that ruling |
| Validity of the traffic stop (reasonable suspicion) | Officer could have stopped for DWI based on swaying; in any event movement was a traffic offense justifying stop | Officer expressly stopped for § 545.060 and his testimony was contradicted by video; trial court found him not credible | Record supports trial court credibility findings; under the facts there was no lawful § 545.060 justification for the stop |
| Policy argument for broader reading to detect serious crimes | Broader (disjunctive) reading prevents supervisory oversight that lets serious offenses go undetected | Traffic rules exist to promote safety, not to create pretexts for extended detention; unrelated inquiries cannot materially extend a stop without new suspicion | Policy argument insufficient to overturn longstanding appellate interpretation or to justify review |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahaffey v. State, 316 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (appellate treatment of lane‑driving statute interpretation)
- Carter v. State, 309 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (trial‑court fact and credibility findings receive great deference even with video)
- Milton v. State, 549 S.W.2d 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (officer may elevate a traffic stop if reasonable indicia of a different offense arise)
- Raffaelli v. State, 881 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1994) (stops based on observed driving conduct can be justified by distinct offenses)
- Barraza v. State, 790 S.W.2d 654 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (appellate precedent on scope of traffic‑stop justification)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 783 (2009) (officer inquiries unrelated to stop do not convert seizure so long as they do not measurably extend its duration)