Joseph Delafuente v. State
367 S.W.3d 731
Tex. App.2012Background
- On June 24, 2009, at ~9:12 a.m., Officer Davis observed a vehicle carrying appellant traveling 52 mph in a 65 mph zone and stopped it for impeding traffic.
- Officer Davis immediately smelled a strong odor of marijuana as he approached and asked appellant where the drugs were; appellant replied that it was in the trunk and that the marijuana belonged to him.
- The driver produced a partially smoked marijuana roach, a bag of marijuana, and other smoking paraphernalia; search yielded two pipes and other paraphernalia.
- The driver and two children were released; appellant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana.
- Appellant moved to suppress, arguing lack of reasonable suspicion for the stop; the trial court denied the motion; the suppression motion record was limited to Officer Davis’s three-page offense report.
- On appeal, the issue is whether there was reasonable suspicion to support the traffic stop; the majority reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reasonable suspicion existed for the traffic stop | Delafuente argues the State failed to present specific, articulable facts showing reasonable suspicion. | State contends the officer's observations of slow driving and congestion support reasonable suspicion. | The trial court erred; no reasonable suspicion existed; suppression reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (requirement of specific, articulable facts for reasonable suspicion)
- Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; deference to historical facts)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (standard for mixed questions of law and fact in suppression)
- Castro v. State, 227 S.W.3d 737 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (distinguishes between specific facts and conclusory opinions on traffic violations)
- Gonzales v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 276 S.W.3d 88 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008) (slow driving not per se violation; must impede normal traffic)
- Richardson v. State, 39 S.W.3d 634 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000) (no reasonable suspicion where traffic impact is minimal)
- U.S. v. Coronado, 480 F.Supp.2d 923 (W.D.Tex.2007) (federal context on speed and impediment considerations)
- Moreno v. State, 124 S.W.3d 339 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003) (upholding implicit denial where evidence showed impeding conduct)
- Armendariz v. State, 123 S.W.3d 401 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (upholding suppression ruling when evidence insufficient)
- Davy v. State, 67 S.W.3d 382 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001) (traffic-stop justification requires more than general assertion)
- Mount v. State, 217 S.W.3d 716 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (reasonable suspicion standard applied to traffic stop)
- Kelly v. State, 331 S.W.3d 541 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.], 2011) (reasonable suspicion for traffic stop; objective standard)