the State of Texas v. Kristen Gail Powell
13-20-00468-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 24, 2021Background
- On Feb. 23, 2019, Trooper Dominic Langford observed a 2012 Nissan Sentra with its two side brake lights working but the high center‑mounted third brake light not illuminating; dashcam corroborated his observation.
- Langford followed the vehicle, then stopped it after observing the same defect on subsequent turns; he told Powell the stop was for the nonworking center‑mounted stop lamp.
- Powell was charged with DWI; she moved to suppress evidence arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion.
- The trial court found Langford erred as a matter of law, relied in part on a 2001 NHTSA letter about owner modifications, and granted the motion to suppress.
- The State appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether Langford had reasonable suspicion under Tex. Transp. Code §547.3215 (which incorporates federal lighting standards requiring a high‑mounted stop lamp for cars under 80 inches wide).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the suppression order, holding the record supported a finding that Langford had reasonable suspicion to stop Powell for operating without the required third stop lamp.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Powell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did officer have reasonable suspicion Powell violated Tex. Transp. Code §547.3215 by lacking a working high‑mounted stop lamp? | Observation of nonworking center lamp gave reasonable suspicion to stop under §547.3215 and incorporated federal standard requiring 3 stoplamps. | Vehicle had two working stoplamps and Powell was therefore compliant; officer lacked reasonable suspicion. | Court: Yes. Reasonable suspicion existed; stop justified. |
| 2. Did officer have probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop generally? | The single observed equipment defect (missing/ nonworking third lamp) provided an objectively reasonable basis to detain. | No objective basis; merely two working lights meant no violation. | Court: Yes. Totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion. |
| 3. Did the officer err as a matter of law by stopping Powell for lack of a high center‑mounted stop lamp? | The officer lawfully relied on state statute adopting federal equipment standards; no legal error. | Trial court: officer made an error of law; third lamp requirement not properly applied. | Court: Not reached — disposition on issues 1–2 made addressing this unnecessary. |
| 4. If there was a legal error, was it a reasonable mistake of law under Heien? | Any mistake (if one existed) would be reasonable under Heien and would still permit the stop. | Officer’s legal error (if any) was unreasonable; suppression appropriate. | Court: Not reached — unnecessary to decide after sustaining issues 1–2. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (reasonable mistake of law can supply reasonable suspicion)
- Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reasonable‑suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
- Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (de novo review of reasonable‑suspicion legal questions)
- Leming v. State, 493 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (officer need only reasonably believe an offense is in progress to justify a stop)
- Garcia v. State, 43 S.W.3d 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (reasonable‑belief standard for traffic stops)
- Saenz v. State, 564 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018) (observing lack of three stoplamps supports reasonable suspicion)
- Schwintz v. State, 413 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013) (traffic stop justified for inoperable stoplamp)
- Garza v. State, 261 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (similar holding on stoplamp defects)
- State v. Varley, 501 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016) (noting §547.3215 supports reasonableness of stops for missing third lamp)