Thomas Schwintz v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 11763
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Officer stopped Schwintz for an equipment violation after observing two working rear stop lamps but no operable center high-mounted stop lamp on a 1994 GMC Sierra.
- The stop led to Schwintz’s arrest for the offense on appeal; factual history is undisputed and statutory construction is a question of law.
- Texas Transportation Code requires at least two stoplamps and the Department must duplicate federal standards for vehicle equipment performance.
- The federal standard requires a high-mounted stop lamp; Texas adopts FMVSS standards via statute and administrative rules.
- Garza v. State treated the center high-mounted lamp as an additional requirement beyond the two rear lamps; the vehicle safety standards adopted align with FMVSS.
- The issue is whether the stop complied with the statutory standards for vehicle equipment; the court held the stop justified and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the stop lawful under Transportation Code standards for stop lamps? | Schwintz argues DPS cannot require a third lamp and section 547.101(d) prohibits inconsistent standards. | State argues DPS adopts federal FMVSS for stop lamps, including the high-mounted lamp, consistent with Chapter 547. | Yes; the stop was valid and suppression was denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahaffey v. State, 364 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (statutory construction standards reviewed de novo)
- Baird v. State, 398 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (literal text interpretation; consistency with legislative purpose)
- Garza v. State, 261 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (center high-mounted stop lamp considered additional requirement)