United States v. Marco Alvarado-Zarza
782 F.3d 246
5th Cir.2015Background
- Marco Antonio Alvarado‑Zarza was stopped by a Texas Highway Patrol officer near the border for allegedly failing to signal 100 feet before a turn under Tex. Transp. Code § 545.104(b).
- Officer Barrientos testified he viewed Alvarado‑Zarza’s movement into a left‑turn lane from a through‑lane as the start of a “turn,” triggering the 100‑foot requirement.
- After the stop, Barrientos obtained consent to search and found cocaine; Alvarado‑Zarza was arrested and later directed the officer to more cocaine before Miranda warnings.
- At the suppression hearing, defense expert James McKay measured distances from a crosswalk sign (where the signal was activated) to the lane‑change point and to the actual turn, testifying these were ≈200 feet and ≈300 feet respectively.
- The district court credited the officer, found McKay not credible, concluded the lane change and turn were a “prolonged turn,” and denied suppression; defendant entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed: it held the officer’s statutory interpretation (applying the 100‑foot rule to lane changes) was an unreasonable mistake of law and that the officer lacked objectively reasonable factual grounds to suspect a violation given McKay’s unchallenged distance measurements.
Issues
| Issue | Alvarado‑Zarza’s Argument | Government/Officer’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 545.104(b)’s 100‑foot signaling requirement applies to lane changes | § 545.104(b) applies only to turns; lane changes are distinct, so officer misinterpreted the law | Officer treated moving into a turn lane as part of the turn and applied the 100‑foot rule | Court: Officer’s reading was a mistake of law and not objectively reasonable; statute applies to turns, not lane changes |
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to stop for a signaling violation | McKay’s measurements show signal was activated well over 100 feet before the actual turn (≈300 ft), so no reasonable suspicion | Officer testified he perceived the signal as less than 100 feet before the maneuver and acted on that belief | Court: District court clearly erred—officer lacked specific, articulable facts; reasonable suspicion not shown |
| Whether the district court properly discredited defense expert testimony | McKay’s on‑site measurements and video supported his conclusions; speed/depth‑perception questions did not undermine distance measurements | District court said McKay lacked credibility due to inability to answer questions about speed/effects of video | Court: Clear error in discrediting McKay; those concerns were irrelevant to his distance calculations |
| Remedy for an unlawful stop producing evidence and statements | Evidence and derivative statements must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule | Government conceded suppression would be required if stop unlawful | Court: Suppress evidence obtained from the stop; reverse and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gomez, 623 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Cotton, 722 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 2013) (fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree doctrine)
- United States v. Hill, 752 F.3d 1029 (5th Cir. 2014) (Terry stops and reasonable suspicion discussion)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (warrantless searches/seizures generally unreasonable)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (officer may briefly stop upon reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1981) (particularized suspicion requirement)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (U.S. 2014) (reasonable‑mistake‑of‑law analysis for stops)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1990) (reasonable mistake of fact doctrine)
- Mahaffey v. State, 316 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (distinguishing turns from lane changes)