Veronica Anneth Gonzalez v. State
09-14-00322-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 12, 2015Background
- At ~4 a.m. on Feb. 10, 2013, Officer Joseph Peart observed a vehicle whose right turn signal remained on while changing lanes; he believed it was traveling at a high rate of speed.
- Peart entered a parking lot, deployed a LIDAR unit, and measured the vehicle at 60 mph in a 45 mph zone; he then pursued and initiated a traffic stop.
- Gonzalez was not cited with an unsafe lane-change; Peart told her he stopped her for speeding and did not mention the lane-change observation in his report.
- Gonzalez moved orally to suppress, arguing the stop was based solely on LIDAR evidence, which she contended was not scientifically reliable and therefore insufficient to justify the stop.
- The trial court found (1) the vehicle stopped before lights were activated, (2) Peart used LIDAR to confirm his belief that Gonzalez exceeded the limit, and (3) Gonzalez drove with her turn signal on and changed lanes multiple times; the court denied suppression, and Gonzalez pleaded guilty with an agreed sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was invalid because it relied solely on LIDAR speed readings | Gonzalez: Stop lacked a valid basis because officer relied only on LIDAR, which she says is not proven scientifically reliable | State (and officer): Officer personally observed high speed (vehicle closing on him and observed lane changes); LIDAR merely confirmed his independent observation | Court: Stop valid. Officer’s personal observation of speeding (independent of LIDAR) provided probable cause, so denial of suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Abney v. State, 394 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Turrubiate v. State, 399 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App.) (review standard: factual findings abuse of discretion; legal application de novo)
- Hall v. State, 297 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. Crim. App.) (LIDAR alone cannot justify stop where no independent officer observation supports speeding)
- Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. Crim. App.) (probable cause exists where officer observes traffic violation)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (decision to stop automobile reasonable when officer has probable cause to believe traffic violation occurred)