This is a 6th COA case that reversed a denial of suppression. D crossed centerline and then fog line. COA said not enough.

I just got poured out on a suppression based on Curtis and came within an inch of another suppression during trial on a different case. (Both DWI cases)

The case came out on Halloween (how appropriate).
Any ideas on how to fight this one?

(PS I just did intake on a drug stop, similar stop.)

First, make sure the officer can recite all the elements of failure to maintain a single lane, and describe his observations related to each element. Many of theses cases come from records wherre this offense is not described , nor the elements established.

Second, argue resonable suspicion for DWI, have the offficer clearly establish their training and experience. Ask them if they have seen this exact driving behavior in other DWI investigations. Make sure your record has time, place and other info clearly related.

Most bad appellate cases come from bad testimony not bad stops. If the officer can't give you PC on all the elements or articulate reasonable suspicion then it is a bad stop. Walk away, don't make more bad case law.

Finally, buy your officers Alpert's DWi book and the Traffic stops book from TDCAA, then hold them down and make them read it.

OK, OK that last may not be helpful.

Any other suggestions out there.

Clay's right about the elements of failing to maintain a single lane. In addition, if failing to maintain a single lane isn't enough, there are separate offenses for driving on an improved shoulder (crossing the fog line) and failing to remain as nearly as practical to the right side of a roadway (crossing the center divider). I don't believe either of those has an element that requires the movement to be unsafe the way failing to maintain a single lane does. There are some exceptions on driving on the improved shoulder (e.g., turning right, going around a car turning left, etc.) so you'll have to make sure the testimony reflects that none of those exceptions exist.

Section 545 of the Transportation Code defines a number of traffic offenses. Ask your officer if the driver signaled his change of lanes: 545.104
Also ask your officer if the driver had one of those covers that obstructs part of the license plate: 502.409.

If the evidence objectively establishes those offenses, the defendant was legally subject to arrest regardless of his subjective reasons for the stop. Look at Crittenden v. State, and Whren v. U.S., which are opinions from the CCA and the USSC doing away with the old pretext arrest doctrine.

I think the key is getting testimony about the traffic conditions at the time. The failure to maintain a single lane stops usually get thrown out where there's no evidence to indicate it was unsafe. If your officer can testify about the general traffic conditions at the time, how many cars were on the road, if any cars had to take evasive action, etc., then you're going to be in a much stronger position than if he just says, "His tire crossed the line."

I sent out a county wide email when this case came out and it basically said this: Swerving + Danger to the Public = Valid Stop. Swerving alone = Suppression.

Get the officer to say that he believed that the individual was a danger to the public and that there were other individuals on the road which were at risk. This will meet the burden required by the 6th COA. (However, don't make them lie, just woodshed correctly).

Aggregation

We'll be doing the same here. Say hi to Brian for me.

Or, you could instruct your officers to simply wait for the defendant to hit something. That would probably satisfy the appellate courts.

JB,

That is the major beef I have with the court's decision.

Didn't the officer in Curtis testify that in additional to violating usual statutes, he believed that the defendnant was intoxicated based on his weaving over the fog line twice as well as into the adjacent lane?

That's what bothered me about the case. How long does an officer have to wait before weaving is considered RS to stop for possible DWI?

Janette Ansolabehere

just a "reasonable time" ha