Markle, Lesle
PD-0287-15
| Tex. App. | Apr 23, 2015Background
- Lesle Markle was stopped and later pleaded guilty to DWI after the trial court denied her motion to suppress; she received 15 months probation per a plea agreement.
- Deputy Goodney testified he observed Markle excessively speeding (initially stated 107 mph), then paced her at 95 mph, and confirmed speed with his patrol car radar and an independent GPS device.
- At the suppression hearing the deputy’s testimony about speeds was inconsistent (reported 107, 95, and told Markle 90 mph) and he gave limited information about the radar/GPS devices or maintenance.
- Markle argued the stop lacked legal justification because the State did not show the radar device used to gauge speed was reliable, relying on Hall v. State.
- The First Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding the deputy’s personal observation (and pacing) of excessive speed provided reasonable suspicion independent of full proof about the radar device.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State satisfied its burden to justify a traffic stop based on speeding when the officer relied on radar/GPS without proving the device’s reliability | Markle: State failed to show the radar/GPS device was reliable, so the speeding basis for the stop was unsupported (citing Hall) | State/Goodney: Officer personally observed excessive speed, paced the vehicle, and used radar and GPS; Hall is distinguishable because it involved sole reliance on LIDAR | Court: Stop justified—officer’s personal observation and pacing (with radar/GPS confirmation) gave reasonable suspicion; Hall not controlling because officer did not rely solely on the device |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. State, 297 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (holding that reliance solely on LIDAR without a reliability showing did not establish probable cause to stop)
- Dillard v. State, 550 S.W.2d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (officer’s visual observation of exceptionally high speed can supply reasonable suspicion)
- Icke v. State, 36 S.W.3d 913 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (officer’s pacing or visual observation supports a speeding stop)
- Mills v. State, 99 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002) (discussing acceptance of radar technology principles but noting device-specific evidence may be required)