State v. Albert Tyrone Bernard
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 12018
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- At ~2:30 a.m., Deputy Watson followed Bernard for ~1–1.5 minutes and activated lights after observing slight swerving; dashcam recorded the stop and ~2 minutes prior.
- Watson and Deputy Manuel testified Bernard’s driving involved minor lane deviations (4–8 inches to ~3 feet at most), did not interfere with traffic, and appeared non‑unsafe; Bernard stopped normally and complied with requests to move to a parking lot.
- Bernard admitted drinking two shots of tequila; Manuel noted glassy eyes, smelled cologne (alleged cover), and Bernard refused field sobriety tests and breath/blood testing.
- Bernard was arrested without a warrant; Manuel obtained a search‑warrant affidavit and a blood warrant ~1 hour 15 minutes after contact.
- Trial court found the stop lacked reasonable suspicion to violate Tex. Transp. Code § 545.060 and concluded the affidavit did not establish probable cause; it granted suppression of the stop and blood results.
- The State appealed; the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, applying deference to trial‑court fact findings and concluding the stop and derivative warrant were invalid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bernard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the warrantless traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion of violating § 545.060 (failure to maintain single lane) | Watson observed lane deviations and had reasonable suspicion to stop for failing to maintain a single lane | Deviations were tiny, not unsafe, did not affect other traffic; no reasonable suspicion existed | Stop lacked reasonable suspicion; suppression affirmed |
| 2. Whether the blood warrant and results were admissible despite the unlawful stop | Affidavit contained sufficient facts (admissions, demeanor, glassy eyes, odor) to establish probable cause for blood warrant | Affidavit was tainted by the illegal stop; evidence derived from unlawful detention must be suppressed | Warrant and blood results suppressed as fruit of illegal stop; affirmation |
Key Cases Cited
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (Fourth Amendment standard for investigatory stops)
- Leming v. State, 493 S.W.3d 552 (interpretation of § 545.060; plurality treating two prongs as separate offenses)
- Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867 (Austin Ct. App. decision applying two‑prong Atkinson/Hernandez test)
- Eichler v. State, 117 S.W.3d 897 (Houston [14th Dist.] decision requiring unsafe prong proof for stop under prior panel precedent)
- McClintock v. State, 480 S.W.3d 734 (fruit‑of‑illegal‑arrest rule: illegally obtained information cannot lawfully procure a warrant)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (evidence obtained as the result of illegal arrest may be suppressed)