Page 26 - TPA Journal July-August 2025

motion to suppress. The Third Court of Appeals Eighteen years later, four judges on this Court rejected
agreed with Appellant and reversed the judgment the Third Court’s reasoning in Hernandez, construing
of conviction. The court below decided this case Section 545.060(a) as creating two separate offenses:
prior to this Court’s opinion in State v. Hardin it is an offense to change marked lanes when it is
(holding that subsection (a) of Section 545.060(a) unsafe to do so; but it is also an independent offense to
of the Transportation Code creates only one fail to remain entirely within a marked lane of traffic
offense and that it is not a traffic violation to fail so long as it remains practical to do so, regardless of
to maintain a single marked lane of traffic if such whether the deviation from the marked lane is, under
failure does not occur in an unsafe manner). the particular circumstances, unsafe.
Therefore, the court of appeals reversed Hardin – The Court of Criminal Appeals formally and
Appellant’s conviction. authoritatively settles the debate: §545.060(a) estab-
The basis offered by the State for the stop of lishes a single offense, not two.
Appellant’s vehicle was that the officer had rea- In Hardin, this Court held that the officer had no rea-
sonable suspicion that Appellant violated Section sonable suspicion to stop the defendant when her vehi-
545.060 of the Texas Transportation Code. That cle’s right rear tire briefly touched the dividing line
section provides, in pertinent part: between the center and right lane of traffic because the
(a) An operator on a roadway divided into two or State did not prove that the movement was unsafe.
more clearly marked lanes for traffic: When analyzing § 545.060(a)’s text, the Court
remarked that the operative terms of the statute—
(1) shall drive as nearly as practical entirely with- “nearly,” “practical,” and “safely”—are “clear and
in a single lane; and unambiguous” and
(2) may not move from the lane unless that move-
ment can be made safely. recognized that the dispute is over the number of
offenses. Considering both subsections, the Court
Since its enactment in 1995, interpretations of the determined that a two-offense construction would ren-
failure-to-maintain-single-lane statute (Section der subsection (a)(1) unconstitutionally vague and
545.060 of the Transportation Code) have varied (a)(2) meaningless.
amongst the intermediate courts. The Hardin Court distinguished the factual scenario
The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, presented in that case from the basis of the stop in
Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Courts of Appeals read Leming, noting that the officer in Leming had reason-
the failure to maintain a single lane statute as able suspicion to stop the defendant for driving while
requiring both: (1) the failure to drive “as nearly as intoxicated regardless of whether he had failed to
practical” in a single lane and (2) unsafe move- maintain a single lane.
ment when moving from a single lane. Judge Slaughter wrote separately to suggest that mis-
Alternatively, the Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, take of law would apply, however, the State failed to
Eleventh, and Twelfth Courts of Appeals have raise the argument. She also noted that reasonable
interpreted subsection (a) as setting forth two minds can disagree as to the meaning of the language
offenses instead of one. in the statute and pointed to the dissent. She further
Hernandez – The Third Court of Appeals holds noted that there existed legitimate disagreements
that § 545.060(a) creates a single offense. among Texas courts as to the statutory interpretation
In Hernandez, the State contended that a driver’s which shows that the law was not as clear as the major-
“drift” across a lane marker into another lane of ity suggests. And as Judge Slaughter recognized, the
traffic traveling in the same direction, without any Fifth Circuit has applied mistake of law to §
evidence that the drifting was unsafe, gave an offi- 545.060(a) in U.S. v. Valenzuela Godinez. There, the
cer reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver Fifth Circuit reasoned: “In light of the statute’s
had violated Section 545.060(a). ambiguous text, coupled with the clear divide among

22 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal