Leming, James Edward
PD-0072-15
Tex. App.Jul 24, 2015Background
- Appellant James Leming was convicted of third-or-more DWI (second-degree felony) after pleading guilty and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. Trial court overruled a motion to suppress; conviction affirmed by the court of appeals and appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
- Police stopped Leming after receiving a report that his vehicle was "swerving"; an officer followed and observed only minor drifting within the lane and a brief crossing into the adjacent lane when no traffic was present.
- At the suppression hearing the officer testified a reporting party named "Arliss" was following and reporting the vehicle; the hearing record did not establish that the report was a 911 call or that the caller gave contact information corroborated at the hearing.
- The State argued the stop was justified under (1) the lane‑driving statute (Tex. Transp. Code §545.060(a)), (2) reasonable suspicion of DWI based on the tip and observed driving, and (3) that the tip was reliable (a 911 report akin to Navarette).
- The appellant argued (1) §545.060(a) prohibits only unsafe lane changes (not all lane changes), (2) the tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability (no corroboration and not established as a 911 call), and (3) the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop for DWI or as a community‑caretaking action.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper interpretation of Tex. Transp. Code §545.060(a) (lane‑driving) | §545.060(a) creates a single offense: leaving a lane when it is not safe; lawful lane changes or minor drifts are not per se violations | §545.060(a)(1) and (2) impose two independent requirements: stay in a lane when practical and any departure must be safe; failure of either is a violation | Court of Appeals adopted appellant’s reading: statute penalizes unsafe lane changes; the State’s broad interpretation would be illogical and vague |
| Reliability of the tip/report supporting the stop | The suppression record did not show the tip was a 911 call or that the caller was sufficiently identified or corroborated; therefore it lacked indicia of reliability | The tip was reliable (a 911 report) and provided indicia of reliability similar to Navarette because the caller reported observed dangerous driving | Court of Appeals found the tip was essentially anonymous for suppression purposes and lacked sufficient indicia of reliability; the record did not establish it as a 911 call |
| Whether observed driving + tip provided reasonable suspicion of DWI | Observations (drift within lane, minor crossing when no traffic present, lawful stops at lights) did not amount to a traffic violation or observable impairment; no reasonable suspicion for stop or DWI investigation | The combination of the tip and observed weaving/drifting, plus officer experience, supported reasonable suspicion of DWI | Court of Appeals held the observed driving did not corroborate dangerous driving or impairment and did not provide reasonable suspicion to justify the stop |
| Community‑caretaking or emergency‑assistance justification | Facts did not show a driver in distress; community‑caretaking did not apply | Officer’s duty to protect might justify a stop to check driver welfare | Court of Appeals rejected community‑caretaking justification; State did not pursue that ground on PDR |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014) (anonymous 911 tip that the vehicle had just run the caller off the road provided sufficient indicia of reliability when corroborated by location/motion)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for evaluating informant tips)
- Rachel v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (review of trial court suppression rulings limited to evidence admitted at suppression hearing)
- Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998) (interpreting §545.060(a) as penalizing unsafe lane departures)
- Fowler v. State, 266 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (same statutory interpretation)
- Bass v. State, 64 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001) (same statutory interpretation)