Background

• Appellant Jesus A. Zuniga-Hernandez pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated; before his plea, he moved to suppress evidence alleging the stop lacked reasonable suspicion, which the trial court denied.
• Sergeant Brian Waldroup observed Appellant at about 1:30 a.m. weaving within his lane, crossing lane dividers, failing to signal, and making a left-hand turn with a ‘cut the corner’ maneuver.
• The sergeant stopped the vehicle, believing the driver could be ill or intoxicated and that others on the road could be endangered.
• During the suppression hearing, the officer testified there were nearby vehicles, but his later testimony indicated there were no other cars around at the moment of the violations.
• The trial court denied the motion to suppress; the State argued the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion under the totality of circumstances.
• On appeal, the court held that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Miller v. State, 418 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (reasonable suspicion based on totality of circumstances; safety-related lane violations)
• Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explicitly defines reasonable suspicion standards)
• Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (investigative detention requires reasonable suspicion)
• Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; credibility respected to weigh facts)
• Ross v. State, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (trial court as factfinder; deferential standard for credibility)
• Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion review framework for suppression rulings)
• Gajewski v. State, 944 S.W.2d 450 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (weaving within lanes can violate §545.060 even if not dangerous to others)