State v. Dietiker
345 S.W.3d 422
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Dietiker was stopped after briefly crossing the fog line on an improved shoulder; the stop occurred at night with windy conditions.
- The officer could not establish that the shoulder incursion was necessary or that any statutory exception applied under section 545.058(a).
- The State conceded the stop was without a warrant and argued the stop was based on reasonable suspicion.
- The trial court suppressed the evidence, ruling the stop lacked reasonable suspicion under the applicable statute.
- The court of appeals reverses, holding that there was reasonable suspicion to support a stop under section 545.058(a) and remands for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was reasonable suspicion to stop under 545.058(a). | State argues shoulder incursion supported suspicion. | Dietiker asserts no necessity or statutory exemption shown. | Yes; reasonable suspicion existed under 545.058(a). |
| Whether evidence of driving on shoulder without necessity negates reasonable suspicion. | State need not negate necessity; any incursion suffices for suspicion. | Dietiker contends lack of necessity defeats suspicion. | Necessity or exemptions need not be proven to establish suspicion under 545.058(a). |
| Whether the trial court erroneously analyzed the stop under section 545.060 rather than 545.058(a). | State relied on 545.058(a); 545.060 was misapplied by the trial court. | Dietiker argues the court correctly followed Tarvin and focused on 545.060. | The court erred in applying 545.060; but the stop was supported by 545.058(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts and objective dobra)
- Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) ( Terry framework for reasonable suspicion)
- Castro v. State, 227 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (totality of circumstances standard for reasonable suspicion)
- Curtis v. State, 238 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (application of totality of circumstances in reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- Tarvin v. State, 972 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. App.-Waco 1998) (short incursion onto fog line insufficient without other evidence)
- Garcia-Cantu v. State, 253 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings and factual deference)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings)
- State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (governs application of law to the facts in suppression analysis)