515 S.W.3d 910
Tex. App.2017Background
- In June 2014 Officer Andrew Mason followed Seth Ardoin’s pickup for ~1 minute at ~12:30 a.m. and activated lights after observing the vehicle strike the curb (recording shows one clear strike; a second is disputed).
- Officer Mason’s sworn report notes he observed the truck hit the west curb twice and that he was "suspicious that the driver was intoxicated."
- Ardoin refused to give a breath specimen after arrest for DWI; DPS administratively suspended his license.
- At the administrative hearing the ALJ found reasonable suspicion existed to stop Ardoin based on the curb strikes and resulting erratic driving.
- The county court reversed, holding the video showed only one curb strike and concluding there was no reasonable suspicion to stop.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed the ALJ’s order de novo under the substantial‑evidence standard and reinstated the ALJ’s suspension decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ardoin) | Defendant's Argument (DPS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Ardoin | Striking a curb is not a traffic offense and Mason’s statement of suspicion was conclusory without factual basis | Officer’s observation of erratic driving (curb strikes, drifting, driving on the line at night) provided an objectively reasonable basis to investigate intoxication | Court held reasonable suspicion existed; reinstated ALJ order suspending license |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 9 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 1999) (describes substantial‑evidence review of administrative suspensions)
- Alford v. Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 209 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2006) (explains de novo review of ALJ decisions under substantial‑evidence standard)
- Leming v. State, 493 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (officer may investigate erratic driving even if no clear traffic offense; “commonsense” indicia of intoxication)
- Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (sets objective, specific‑articulable‑facts test for reasonable suspicion)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2014) (reasonableness standard tolerates some innocent explanations)