Michael Nnamani v. State
02-15-00429-CR
Tex. App.Nov 17, 2016Background
- Around midnight on Aug. 27, 2013, Officer Nicholas Steppe observed three vehicles leave a neighborhood and travel together; he followed two that turned onto northbound Highway 360.
- Officer Steppe testified he observed Appellant’s vehicle exit the neighborhood "at a high rate of speed," estimating 40–45 mph in a 35 mph zone (based on pursuit, not radar).
- On approaching an intersection, Appellant’s car entered the right-turn lane, appeared to straddle the solid white turn-lane line, then made an abrupt left correction back into the travel lane; Steppe then activated his lights and stopped the vehicle.
- Appellant moved to suppress evidence and statements, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause; the trial court denied the motion and adopted magistrate findings.
- Appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain and appealed only the suppression denial; the court of appeals affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nnamani) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s findings were impermissibly vague/weasel words | Findings lack specific, articulable facts and use conclusory language, so credibility of officer is unclear | Findings are explicit, adopt officer’s observations, and are not ambiguous like Mendoza | Trial court findings were sufficiently explicit and not vague; challenge rejected |
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion/probable cause to stop for speeding | Officer’s testimony was conclusory; no radar, no precise speed, so no articulable facts to justify stop | Officer estimated speed based on experience and pursuit; observation of speeding in officer’s presence suffices to justify stop | Stop upheld: officer’s estimation of speed provided reasonable suspicion (and probable cause to stop) |
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion/probable cause to stop for failure to maintain single lane (Tex. Transp. Code §545.060) | Straddling and abrupt correction did not supply reasonable suspicion/probable cause | Officer observed lane-straddling and abrupt correction supporting a lane-violation basis for stop | Court did not reach this issue on merits because speeding alone justified the stop; claim not addressed further |
Key Cases Cited
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App.) (bifurcated review on suppression; deference to trial court fact findings)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court as factfinder; credibility deference)
- Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. Crim. App.) (view evidence in light most favorable to trial court on suppression)
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App.) (conclusory officer testimony insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
- Torres v. State, 182 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. Crim. App.) (probable cause requires reasonable belief based on specific facts)
- State v. Mendoza, 365 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial-court findings using "weasel words" can render findings ambiguous)
- State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. Crim. App.) (examples of explicit findings showing trial court credited officer)
- Dillard v. State, 550 S.W.2d 45 (Tex. Crim. App.) (officer observation of speeding can provide probable cause to stop)
- Icke v. State, 36 S.W.3d 913 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (officer estimation of speed based on experience can constitute reasonable suspicion)