Texas Department of Public Safety v. Conrado M. Huerta
13-19-00470-CV
Tex. App.Jul 1, 2021Background
- On June 13, 2018, Harlingen Police Officer Joel Avalos observed Conrado M. Huerta change lanes three times without signaling and drive partially in the center-striped lane; Avalos initiated a traffic stop.
- During the stop Avalos smelled alcohol, observed glassy/bloodshot eyes and slurred speech, and Huerta admitted drinking five 12-oz alcoholic beverages; Avalos performed field sobriety tests and arrested Huerta for DWI.
- The ALJ found reasonable suspicion for the stop, probable cause to arrest for DWI, that Huerta was given required statutory (oral and written) warnings (DIC-24), and that Huerta refused to provide a breath/blood specimen; ALJ ordered a 180-day license suspension.
- Huerta appealed to the county trial court arguing (1) he was not given the required statutory warnings before refusing the breath test and (2) his lane deviations were not unsafe and thus did not support reasonable suspicion. The trial court reversed the ALJ.
- DPS appealed. The court of appeals conducted a de novo substantial-evidence review of the ALJ record, found more than a scintilla of evidence supporting the ALJ’s findings (stop, probable cause, warnings, refusal), and reversed the trial court, reinstating the suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Huerta's Argument | DPS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Huerta | Lane movement onto center lane was not an unsafe violation under §545.060(a); no reasonable suspicion | Observed three lane changes without signaling provided reasonable suspicion to detain | Court held stop was supported by reasonable suspicion; DPS issue sustained |
| Whether ALJ had probable cause to arrest for DWI | No probable cause shown for DWI | Officer’s observations (odor, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech), admission of drinking, and failing field tests supported probable cause | Court held record contained more than a scintilla supporting probable cause; DPS issue sustained |
| Whether statutory warnings (DIC-24) were provided and refusal occurred | No evidence Huerta received both oral and written warnings (pointed to lack of Huerta’s signature on form) | Officer’s reports stated he read and handed Huerta the DIC-24, Huerta acknowledged and refused; credibility is for ALJ | Court held substantial evidence supported ALJ’s finding that warnings were given and Huerta refused; DPS issue sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 9 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 1999) (substantial-evidence standard for judicial review of administrative suspension)
- Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Struve, 79 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2002) (de novo review of substantial-evidence determination)
- R.R. Comm’n of Tex. v. Torch Operating Co., 912 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. 1995) (definition of "more than a mere scintilla" standard)
- Hargrove v. State, 40 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (observed lane changes without signaling support reasonable suspicion)
- Amador v. State, 275 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (probable cause standard for warrantless arrest under the Fourth Amendment)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1949) (formulation that probable cause is more than suspicion but less than required for conviction)
- Scanio v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 159 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2004) (affirming ALJ decision if supported by more than a scintilla of evidence)