State v. Amber Suzanne Hneidy
510 S.W.3d 458
Tex. App.2013Background
- Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, applies to Amber S. Hneidy’s suppression motion from Kerr County trial court.
- Officer Ben Eubank stopped Hneidy for allegedly failing to signal 100 feet before turning and was supported by Donnell’s observations.
- Suppression hearing included Donnell and Eubank testimony, Eubank’s report, and a patrol-car video.
- Trial court granted suppression, finding no reasonable suspicion and questioning the distance of signaling; it credited the video and stated several factual conclusions.
- On appeal, the State argues the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion under the totality of circumstances; the appellate court must determine if the stop was reasonable under law and de novo review of law to facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion? | Hneidy | State argues totality of circumstances suffices | No; not supported by specific, articulable facts. |
| Did the trial court err by not considering all evidence or misapplying burden of proof? | Hneidy challenged findings and evidentiary credit | State asserts proper consideration and burden shifting | No; reasonable-suspicion standard not met. |
| Did the officer have objective basis under totality of circumstances for stop despite video showing signaling before turning? | Hneidy argues evidence insufficient | State relies on 100-foot signaling rule | No; lack of specific, articulable facts to support reasonable suspicion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (requires specific, articulable facts, not mere opinions, for reasonable suspicion)
- Brother v. State, 166 S.W.3d 255 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citizen-eyewitness corroboration can support a stop without constituting a warrantless search)
- Arizpe v. State, 308 S.W.3d 89 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010) (corroboration requirements for eyewitness information)
- Garcia v. State, 327 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010) (reasonable-suspicion standard applied to totality of circumstances)
- Elias v. State, 339 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standard for reasonable suspicion; use of objective factors)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes reasonable-suspicion standard for detentions)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) (need for corroboration beyond mere hunch in some contexts)
- Hamal v. State, 390 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (objective review of facts supporting suspicion)
- Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (standard for applying totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to trial-court factual findings; de novo review of law)