James William Nobile v. State
07-15-00216-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 24, 2015Background
- On Sept. 2, 2013, Trooper James Spicer followed James Nobile from FM 1541 to FM 3331 and then onto IH-27 near milepost 111, approaching the Canyon Expressway.
- On FM 3331 Spicer observed Nobile cross the center stripe two or three times; Spicer kept following but did not stop there.
- On IH-27 Spicer observed Nobile cross the center stripe/dividing stripe on at least three occasions; in total the court found five or six lane deviations corroborated by the patrol car DVD.
- Spicer testified he stopped Nobile for a traffic violation (failure to drive in a single marked lane, Tex. Transp. Code § 545.060) and because the driving suggested distraction, sleepiness, or possible intoxication.
- Nobile moved to suppress, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion; the trial court denied the motion, made findings, and the court of appeals affirmed after Nobile pled guilty (State waived enhancement).
Issues
| Issue | Nobile's Argument | State/Trooper's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion to detain for investigation of DWI or a traffic violation | The stop was unjustified because no unsafe act or near-accident occurred and Spicer relied only on IH-27 observations; therefore no reasonable suspicion of a crime | Spicer had specific, articulable facts — multiple lane departures over miles — and relied on totality of driving to form reasonable suspicion of erratic/drunk driving | Court held the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion; trial court's denial of suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Turrubiate v. State, 399 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Duran v. State, 396 S.W.3d 563 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts; objective standard)
- Kerwick v. State, 393 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (reasonable suspicion permits brief investigatory stop)
- Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (trial court credited on credibility and historical facts)
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reasonable suspicion assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 542 U.S. 177 (U.S. 2004) (discussing authority to detain for investigation)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (specific and articulable facts standard for stops)