Page 12 - Police Officer's Guide 2013

was impeded by appellants driving. Specifically, there was no evidence presented that appellants car was the
cause of the congestion, that the moderate traffic volume was unusual for the time of day, whether cars were
forced to pass appellant, how long the officer observed the traffic congestion behind appellant, or that traveling
13 miles below the speed limit was unreasonable given the traffic and weather conditions at the time. The
officer s opinion that appellant was impeding traffic, without specific, articulable facts to substantiate it, is
insufficient to support the existence of reasonable suspicion.

We conclude that the record does not justify a reasonable suspicion that appellant was impeding traffic,
and therefore the trial court erred in denying appellants motion to suppress evidence.

Delafuente v. State, No. 14-11-00500-CR, Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.) April 3, 2012.

REASONABLE SUSPICION PRETEXT DRUG STOP
Intellegence information indicated a vehicle was loaded with several hundred kilos of cocaine and
millions of dollars in drug proceeds was to be driven from the Texas border area to Chicago. In order to avoid
compromising on ongoing investigation, the vehicle was allowed to leave Texas and was stopped by Illinois
officers for a traffic violation as it approached Chicago.

Several Illinois State officers were stationed along I-55 to observe the vehicle and conduct a traffic stop.
Officer Brody observed that the trailer s taillights were flicker[ing] as if there was a mechanical issue and that
the trailer was swaying back and forth within its lane. Brody initiated a traffic stop based on improper lane usage
and improper lighting.

Brody approached Andres, who was driving the truck, and requested his driver s license, registration, and
insurance. Brody returned to his car and ran a check on Andres license. Brody determined that Andres had a
valid license, a clean driving record, and no outstanding warrants, and decided to issue a written warning for the
traffic offenses. Brody wrote a warning ticket and returned to the truck to speak with Andres. Brody asked
Andres to get out of the truck so that he could talk to Andres about the taillight problem. Andres inspected the
electrical connection between the truck and the trailer. Brody told Andres that he would give him a warning ticket
and handed him a clipboard to sign the ticket.

While Andres was signing the ticket, Brody asked him where he was coming from. Andres replied that
he was coming from Joliet, where he had dropped off a car. However, Brody knew that Simington had spotted
the truck south of Joliet, and that Andres would not have had time to stop in Joliet. Brody also observed at this
point that Andres began to fidget and move his feet and arms around, which Brody interpreted as nervousness.
Brody asked Andres who was in the truck with him. Andres responded that it was his stepdaughter, but he did
not know her last name. Brody then patted down Andres, checked inside his jacket for weapons, and went to talk
to the passenger, Noemi Gutierrez (Gutierrez). She stated that she and Andres had come from Joliet, where
they had dropped off a van on Ruby Street.

Brody returned to speak to Andres and asked him if he had any drugs in the truck. Andres denied that he
did, and said go ahead and check. Brody asked permission to search for drugs with his dog, and Andres
consented. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs within about thirty seconds. Officers ultimately found over
twenty kilograms of cocaine in a hidden compartment in the truck.

Andres moved to suppress the drug evidence, arguing that Brody did not initially have probable cause to
stop the truck and that the duration and scope of the stop were not justified by the alleged traffic offenses. The
district court denied this motion in an oral ruling following the suppression hearing. Andres then waived his right
to jury trial and consented to a bench trial based on stipulated facts in order to preserve his right to appeal the

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 5 2013 Edition