State v. Andrew Bernwanger
13-15-00198-CR
| Tex. App. | May 14, 2015Background
- Defendant Andrew Bernwanger was arrested for DWI after a traffic stop and received two traffic citations (failure to stop/yield and driving the wrong way).
- Bernwanger was acquitted in municipal court of the traffic citations related to the stop.
- He moved in the DWI case to suppress evidence, arguing collateral estoppel barred the State from relitigating whether there was reasonable suspicion to stop him.
- At a pretrial hearing the trial court heard only the collateral‑estoppel argument and granted Bernwanger’s motion to suppress.
- The State appealed, arguing the acquittals did not preclude relitigation of reasonable suspicion (a lower civil standard) and that Bernwanger failed to introduce the municipal‑trial record to prove the factual findings he relied on.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bernwanger) | Held (trial court at issue) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether acquittal of traffic citations collaterally estops the State from litigating reasonable suspicion for the stop in a suppression hearing | Acquittal does not bar relitigation because suppression requires only a preponderance showing of reasonable suspicion and the municipal acquittal (beyond a reasonable doubt) is insufficient and unproven on the record | Acquittal of the traffic offenses forecloses the State from relitigating facts supporting reasonable suspicion; those issues were already tried and resolved in municipal court | Trial court granted suppression on collateral estoppel grounds (granting Bernwanger’s motion) |
| Whether defendant met burden to prove issue preclusion | State: Defendant failed to produce the municipal‑court record showing which facts the jury decided and thus cannot show a specific factual finding that would preclude relitigation | Bernwanger: Relied on the acquittals and asserted other “bad driving” facts were discussed at municipal trial (but produced no record) | Trial court ruled in favor of defendant despite absence of municipal record |
| Whether an acquittal under a higher standard prevents relitigation when the subsequent proceeding uses a lower standard | State: Dowling and York hold acquittal does not bar relitigation when later proceeding is governed by a lower standard of proof | Bernwanger: Argued the acquittal nonetheless resolved the relevant factual issue of whether the stop was supported | Trial court applied collateral estoppel to suppress evidence |
| Whether charges (officer's citations) alone establish the factual scope of what was decided at municipal trial | State: Citations reflect the officer’s subjective charging decision and do not exhaust the universe of articulable facts that could support reasonable suspicion | Bernwanger: Relied on the charged citations and alleged other facts were considered by the municipal jury | Trial court concluded acquittals foreclosed relitigation of reasonable‑suspicion facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (concerning constitutional collateral estoppel and double jeopardy)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (traffic stop is a Fourth Amendment seizure analogous to a temporary detention)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (subsequent acquittal does not invalidate an arrest; validity does not depend on conviction)
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (acquittal does not bar relitigation when the later proceeding is governed by a lower standard of proof)
- York v. State, 342 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discussing collateral estoppel and standards of proof in suppression context)
- Guajardo v. State, 109 S.W.3d 456 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defendant must produce the prior record to show which facts were actually decided)
- Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App.) (objective, specific articulable facts standard for reasonable suspicion)
- Drago v. State, 553 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. Crim. App.) (reasonable suspicion to stop need not prove the violation actually occurred; suspicion of violation suffices)