Sam Ellis Allen v. State
09-13-00476-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 28, 2015Background
- Trooper stopped Sam Ellis Allen on I-45 after observing Allen change from the left lane into the center lane; trooper believed the lane change was made too close in front of a red Dodge, forcing that vehicle to slow.
- Trooper testified the distance between Allen’s car and the Dodge was less than a car length (maybe less than half a car length) and that the Dodge slowed to avoid a collision.
- Dashboard video was admitted and played at the suppression hearing; video showed the lane change and the Dodge falling back but did not unequivocally refute the trooper’s description.
- During the stop the trooper detected the odor of marijuana, learned the front-seat passenger had marijuana on her person, searched the vehicle, and found ~48 pounds of marijuana in the trunk.
- Allen was charged with possession of marijuana (more than 5 lbs but less than or equal to 50 lbs); he moved to suppress evidence from the stop, arguing the initial stop lacked reasonable suspicion.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress; Allen was convicted by a jury and sentenced after enhancements. On appeal he challenged only the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Allen's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trooper had reasonable suspicion to stop Allen for an unsafe lane change under Tex. Transp. Code § 545.060(a) | Allen: video and facts show lane change was safe; trooper lacked specific, articulable facts to suspect a violation | State: trooper observed a close lane change that forced the Dodge to slow, giving objective reasonable suspicion the lane change was unsafe | Court: affirmed — trooper articulated specific facts (distance, Dodge slowed) that, viewed in light most favorable to trial court, supplied reasonable suspicion |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes reasonable-suspicion standard for brief investigative detentions)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (videotape may overcome trial court findings when it indisputably contradicts testimony)
- Carter v. State, 309 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (trial court fact findings based on video generally entitled to deference)
- Fowler v. State, 266 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (officer lacked reasonable suspicion where lane-line crossing alone, without unsafe conduct, did not justify stop)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (trial judge is sole trier of fact and credibility in suppression hearings)