Page 25 - TPA Journal July-August 2025

morass.” in the analysis of force cases. Todd testified that he saw Appellant’s vehicle
cross the dotted white line dividing the outer lanes
The Supreme Court opinion leaves from the inner lanes three times. A dashcam video
untouched the notion that qualified immunity recording shows one of these instances where
requires that an officer’s use of force be reason- Appellant veers out of his lane as he navigates a
able under “clearly established law”. Thus, in the left turn at an intersection. This initial crossing
Fifth Circuit, the “moment of threat” analysis during the turn is plainly visible on the video, but
remains relevant in the qualified immunity context the officer agreed it is difficult to see on the video
for incidents occurring prior to the date how Appellant was driving as he got further from
(5.15.2025) of the Barnes v. Felix opinion. In a the patrol vehicle. There were no other cars near
qualified immunity setting, the Court must first the Appellant’s vehicle nor did there appear to be
determine whether an excessive use of force has anything else unsafe about Appellant’s driving.
occurred. The broader view of Barnes v. Felix is Officer Todd initiated a traffic stop. Once the offi-
to be applied in this analysis. Then, the Court cer approached Appellant, he smelled alcohol on
must determine if the officer’s actions could have Appellant’s breath. Appellant admitted he had
been viewed as lawful by a reasonable officer been drinking but refused to give a breath sample
under ‘clearly established law’. We believe that and refused to participate in all the roadside tests
the narrower analysis of “moment of threat” is the offered. After the officer observed a total of six
clearly established law for incidents in the Fifth clues of intoxication, he obtained a warrant for a
Circuit before 5.15.25 – the date of the Barnes v. blood sample. The test results showed Appellant’s
Felix opinion. blood alcohol content was .174. Based on his
criminal history, and the events of that morning,
Barnes v. Felix, U.S. Sup. Ct., No. 23-1239, May Appellant was indicted for felony driving while
15, 2025. intoxicated.
During the suppression hearing, Appellant argued
that a violation of the failure to maintain a single
SEARCH & SEIZURE — Reasonable mistake lane statute, Section 545.060(a) of the Texas
of law Transportation Code, requires the motorist to have
strayed from his lane when it was not safe to do so.
The State asks whether a mistake of law should The State disagreed, noting that the video showed
apply whenever an officer conducts a search or “a very clear failure to maintain a single lane dur-
seizure under an ambiguous law that a majority of ing a left turn,” and that this was “a clear violation
this Court had not yet construed, notwithstanding of the law.” According to the State, his car went
negative precedent in the controlling appellate almost entirely into the inside lane as he entered
jurisdiction. We hold the answer to that question the roadway.
is, yes. The officer’s reasonable misinterpretation The trial court denied Appellant’s motion, finding
of state criminal law did not undermine the rea- that Appellant “turned left and did not remain
sonable suspicion required to conduct the traffic within his single marked lane”; that “Officer Todd
stop. followed to make an investigatory stop”; and that
“he indicated that he saw two more instances of
Appellant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress not maintaining a single marked lane before the
based on the argument that the officer did not have stop which were not unsafe.” The trial court con-
reasonable suspicion that Appellant was driving cluded that “a warrantless stop was made upon
while intoxicated. Killeen Police Department probable cause [sic] which lead [sic] to
Officer John Todd testified that around three in the [Appellant’s] arrest and detention for DWI”.
morning on April 15, 2017, he stopped Appellant On appeal, Appellant challenged the denial of his
for failing to remain in a single lane of traffic.

July - Aug 2025 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 21