Pierce, Joseph Michael, PD-0651-15

Pierce was convicted of possession of more than 400 grams of methamphetamine and sentenced to 70 years and $250,000 fine after a jury trial.
Trooper Frazier stopped Pierce on Interstate 20 in Smith County for allegedly riding on the improved shoulder by touching the fog line.
A pretrial motion to suppress was denied; at trial, Frazier recanted his pretrial testimony about driving on the line being the same as driving on the shoulder.
The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding there was reasonable suspicion for the stop and that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Pierce petitioned for discretionary review to challenge the suppression ruling and related issues.
The appellate court treated the stop under review and concluded the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion and denied ineffective assistance on the basis of the omitted findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether touching the fog line constitutes driving on the improved shoulder under Tex. Transp. Code § 545.058(a).	Pierce argues touching the fog line does not equal driving on the improved shoulder.	The State asserts that touching the line can sustain reasonable suspicion to stop.	No, not supported; the line is not defined as part of the improved shoulder.
Whether the court should abate and remand for express findings of fact on which incident justified the stop.	Appellant contends the record lacks explicit findings on which incident justified the stop.	State contends the existing record supports the ruling without remand.	Remand required to clarify dispositive factual basis for the stop.

Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (reasonable-suspicion standard for traffic stops)
Goudeau v. State, 209 S.W.3d 713 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (mistaken offense understanding cannot justify suspicion)
United States v. Granado, 302 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2002) (reliance on mistaken legal understanding invalid for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Lopez-Valdez, 178 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 1999) (objective reasonable-suspicion standard)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (preference for objective review of traffic-stop justification)
State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (requires credible, dispositive findings for credibility determinations on suppression)
Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (trial court credibility deference in suppression rulings)
Ross v. State, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (need for express findings of fact and review of implicit findings)
Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)