664 S.W.3d 867
Tex. Crim. App.2022Background
- Around 1:19 a.m., Corpus Christi Officer David Alfaro followed a U‑Haul after a BOLO connecting a U‑Haul to nearby burglaries; no descriptive details in BOLO tied the vehicle to crimes.
- Dash‑cam and officer testimony show the U‑Haul traveling in the center lane of a three‑lane highway; while rounding a curve the right rear tire briefly rode on and slightly over the center‑lane divider for a few seconds.
- There were no other vehicles nearby, no erratic driving, no close calls, and no evidence the movement created a safety risk; the driver corrected back into the lane and remained there until stopped.
- Officer Alfaro initiated a traffic stop for failing to maintain a single marked lane (§545.060(a)), then searched the vehicle and the State charged Hardin with identity‑fraud and forgery based on evidence from that search.
- Hardin moved to suppress arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion; the trial court granted suppression, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer had reasonable suspicion to stop for failing to maintain a single lane under §545.060(a) | State: Any crossing of a lane line (i.e., failure to maintain a single lane) is a traffic violation regardless of safety, so the observed tire contact supplied reasonable suspicion | Hardin: Brief, nonhazardous contact with the lane divider is incidental and not an unsafe departure from the lane; no reasonable suspicion existed | Court: No reasonable suspicion—§545.060(a) requires unsafe movement; brief, safe tire contact does not violate the statute |
| How to construe §545.060(a) (are subsections separate offenses or read together?) | State (relying on Leming): Treat the statutory duty and the prohibition as separable; failure to perform the duty can itself create an offense | Hardin: Subsections must be read together so that failure to remain "as nearly as practical" only becomes an offense when the movement is unsafe; otherwise subsection (a)(1) is vague | Court: Read subsections together—driver violates §545.060(a) only when failing to maintain the lane in an unsafe manner; reading them separately would render (a)(1) vague and make (a)(2) redundant |
Key Cases Cited
- Leming v. State, 493 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (discussed competing construction that §542.301 makes failure to maintain a lane an offense regardless of safety)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1983) (vagueness doctrine for penal statutes)
- Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reasonable‑suspicion standard for investigative stops)
- Castro v. State, 227 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (articulable facts and totality‑of‑circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Mahaffey v. State, 316 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (statutory‑interpretation principles applied to criminal statutes)