Samantha a Pabst v. State
466 S.W.3d 902
Tex. App.2015Background
- Samantha A. Pabst was stopped after Officer Tida Liu, following about four-to-five feet behind, could not read the vehicle’s temporary tag because the ink was faded and only two of seven digits were visible through a plastic cover.
- Officer Liu initiated the stop based on suspicion the temporary tag was not displayed or legible in accordance with commission rules, leading to evidence that resulted in a DWI charge.
- Pabst moved to suppress evidence from the stop; the trial court denied the motion. She pled guilty while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. Sentence: one year confinement probated for one year and $300 fine.
- At the suppression hearing, the State argued reasonable suspicion existed because illegible temporary tags can indicate noncompliance with transportation and administrative rules requiring tags be visible and legible.
- Pabst argued the tag was legible at closer distance, the Administrative Code imposes display duties on dealers (not clearly on drivers), and the officer lacked reasonable suspicion; she also later contended the stop was unreasonably prolonged.
- The trial court found Officer Liu had reasonable suspicion and denied suppression; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pabst) | Defendant's Argument (State/Officer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stop violated Fourth Amendment because officer lacked reasonable suspicion | Tag was legible when closer; Code imposes duty on dealer to display tag, not driver; officer lacked reasonable suspicion | Illegible tag from 4–5 ft reasonably suggested noncompliance with display/legibility rules, giving reasonable suspicion to stop | Stop was lawful; officer had reasonable suspicion |
| Whether detention became unlawful because it lasted after suspicion dissipated | Officer read tag and should have let Pabst go; detention then became unreasonably prolonged | Issue not preserved for appeal; trial court record did not clearly present this specific complaint | Not preserved; appellate review denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (standard of review for suppression hearings; deference to trial court findings)
- Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court as sole factfinder at suppression hearing)
- Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (traffic stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment)
- Delafuente v. State, 414 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (burden shifting in suppression: defendant rebuts presumption of proper police conduct; State must show reasonableness)
- Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (State need only show officer reasonably suspected an offense, not that one actually occurred)
- Green v. State, 866 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993) (illegible temporary tag can give rise to reasonable suspicion)
- Kennedy v. State, 847 S.W.2d 635 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1993) (same: illegible tag supports reasonable suspicion)
- Chapman v. State, 961 S.W.2d 586 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997) (driver responsibility to display temporary tag according to commission rules)
- Hailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (issues not raised timely in trial court generally not preserved on appeal)
- Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (appellate complaints must mirror trial objections to preserve review)