State v. Ismael Serda
13-15-00178-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 11, 2015Background
- Ismael Serda was speeding while followed by DPS Agent Walters in an unmarked vehicle.
- Officer Castro was dispatched to intercept Walters and Serda for speeding, intoxication, and reckless driving.
- Serda admitted to speeding at 80–100 mph during the encounter.
- The trial court found no reasonable suspicion and granted Serda’s motion to suppress; it declined to make findings on the speeding.
- Castro did not witness the speeding because Serda pulled over before she could observe him, yet the dispatch and Walters’ pursuit were undisputed.
- The state appealed the suppression order, contending the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion and/or the stop was a consensual encounter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there reasonable suspicion to stop Serda? | Serda’s speeding, followed by Walters, gave reasonable suspicion. | Serda’s speeding and pursuit were not sufficiently tied to criminal activity to justify a stop. | Yes; reasonable suspicion existed, warranting reversal of the suppression. |
| Did Serda’s speeding admission negate reasonable suspicion? | Admitted speeding confirms suspicion. | Serda’s beliefs about being chased are irrelevant to suspicion. | No; speeding admission supports, not negates, reasonable suspicion. |
| Was the initial encounter a detention or consensual? | The stop was a legitimate detention supported by suspicion. | Serda stopped before knowing of pursuit; it was a consensual encounter. | The encounter was consensual before pursuit became known; if detention existed, it was unlawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- McVickers v. State, 874 S.W.2d 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (traffic stops based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion)
- Hoag v. State, 728 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (collective knowledge of cooperating officers may create reasonable suspicion)
- Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (collective knowledge standard for reasonable suspicion)
- Wade v. State, 422 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (consensual encounters and the Mendenhall framework)
- Valencia v. State, 820 S.W.2d 397 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991) (probable cause not required for initial investigative detentions)
- Scardino v. State, 294 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2009) (automobile stop as Fourth Amendment seizure requires reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Kerwick, 393 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact)
- Martinez v. State, 348 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (collective knowledge and dispatcher as cooperating officer)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (implicit guidance on traffic stops and reasonable suspicion)