United States v. Joe Castillo, 804 F.3d 361

Officer Collins observed Castillo driving in the left-most lane on Highway 59 at ~12:30 a.m.; a “left lane for passing only” sign was 5.3 miles south of where Collins first saw the vehicle.
Collins followed the vehicle for several minutes (catching up ~8 miles from the sign, then following ~3 more miles), twice drove alongside to give an opportunity to change lanes, then stopped it for an alleged left-lane violation.
When Collins approached, he saw three people huddled on the floorboard in the rear; they were later determined to be unauthorized aliens; Castillo was federally indicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 and moved to suppress evidence from the stop.
The district court denied the motion to suppress after an evidentiary hearing at which Collins was the sole witness and dashboard-camera videos were played; the court found it more likely than not Castillo had passed the sign.
The Fifth Circuit majority affirmed, holding Collins had reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances (distance from sign, continuous left-lane driving, opportunity to change lanes, sparsely traveled stretch).
Judge Elrod dissented, arguing the stop lacked the required particularized suspicion because Collins had no evidence Castillo passed the sign (on-ramps/entrances in the 5.3-mile stretch and no testimony about traffic patterns), and that the district court improperly relied on its own probabilistic judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer had reasonable, particularized suspicion to stop Castillo for violating a “left lane for passing only” sign	Castillo: Officer lacked reasonable suspicion because he had no evidence Castillo passed the sign; on-ramps/entrances in the 5.3-mile stretch made it equally likely Castillo entered after the sign	Government: Totality of circumstances (5.3-mile distance, sustained left-lane travel, officer gave opportunities to change lanes, sparse traffic) supports a reasonable suspicion that Castillo passed the sign	Court: Affirmed — reasonable suspicion existed; deference to district court’s factual findings and inferences from local conditions justified the stop

Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (reasonable-suspicion reviewed as legal question; deference to factual findings)
Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than preponderance)
Abney v. State, 394 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App.) (sign must be within a “reasonable distance”; courts determine applicability on case facts)
Mouton v. State, 101 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. App.) (upholding stop when signs were 3–4 miles away and officer followed defendant before stopping)
Baker v. State, 50 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. App.) (upholding stop approximately six miles past sign under the circumstances)
United States v. Garcia, 976 F. Supp. 2d 856 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (contrasting view: presence of multiple on-ramps between sign and stop undermined inference that driver passed sign)