Page 38 - TPA Journal Sept Oct 2021

that the officers had probable cause to make the initial answered, with certainty, many other questions about
traffic stop and the resulting denial of Onyeri’s motion the traffic stop. For example, he testified that traffic
to suppress the information obtained from his Samsung was permitted to flow during the traffic stop and that
Galaxy. He contends that Officer Uresti’s testimony the road was not obstructed. He also stated that his line
regarding the traffic stop was not credible. Analyzing of sight to the silver Charger was not obstructed in any
the stop in its entirety, we conclude the district court was way and that he had no doubt that he saw the Charger
correct. “[W]e may consider all of the evidence turn into the number one lane. These details are crucial
presented at trial, not just that presented before the to the determination of whether to stop the Charger, and
ruling on the suppression motion, in the light most whether the officers had probable cause. In contrast,
favorable to the prevailing party, which in this case is many of the aspects of the stop that Officer Uresti could
the Government.” not remember were unimportant to the propriety of
initiating the traffic stop. It is eminently plausible that
“As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile the traffic stop occurred just as Officer Uresti
is reasonable where the police have probable cause to explained; nothing in the record suggests otherwise.
believe that a traffic violation has occurred.” Probable And the district court twice stated for our review that it
cause is a “practical, nontechnical conception.” It is a found Officer Uresti credible.
“fluid concept” guided by a totality of the circumstances
analysis. We have said that “the constitutionality of [an] Furthermore, “the clearly erroneous standard is
officer’s stop of [a] vehicle must stand or fall based on particularly strong because the judge had the
whether [the defendant] violated Texas law[.]” That is, opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses”
the “legal justification for the traffic stop must be at the suppression hearing and at trial. We cannot
‘objectively grounded.’” Officer Uresti testified at trial identify any clear errors in the district court’s factual
that he observed the vehicle that Onyeri was riding in findings. Accordingly, we conclude that the district
commit a minor traffic violation, making a wide right- court correctly denied Onyeri’s motion to suppress.
hand turn into an adjacent lane. He explained how a
proper right-hand turn should be made, according to the Onyeri preserved his challenge to the sufficiency of the
Texas Transportation Code: “when making a right turn, evidence by moving for a judgment of acquittal at the
the operator shall approach and complete the turn close of the Government’s case. We review these claims
closest to the . . . right-hand curb or the edge of the de novo, according “substantial deference to the jury
roadway.” In this case, Officer Uresti testified, the verdict.” We “must affirm a conviction if, after viewing
number two lane was the proper lane for completing a the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light
right turn; “[t]he inside lane closest to the median is the most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of
number one lane, and the outside lane is the number two fact could have found the essential elements of the
lane.” But, he told the district court, he saw the vehicle crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Onyeri’s challenge is
make an improper turn “into the number one lane” in specific to one offense of conviction: conspiring to
violation of Texas Transportation Code § 545.101. violate the RICO statute. The elements of a RICO
Officer Uresti’s observation of this traffic violation conspiracy are: (1) an agreement between two or more
therefore gave him an objectively grounded legal people to commit a substantive RICO offense; and (2)
justification—and sufficient probable cause—to initiate knowledge of and agreement to the overall objective of
the stop. the RICO offense. These elements may be established
by circumstantial evidence. First, there is sufficient
Onyeri disputes the district court’s finding that Officer evidence to find that two or more people agreed to
Uresti’s testimony was credible. The crux of his violate § 1962(c), which criminalizes racketeering
argument centers on Officer Uresti’s responses that he activity. Evidence presented at trial showed that Onyeri
didn’t remember certain details of the traffic stop. engaged associates to assist him in carrying out his
Onyeri argues that Officer Uresti’s failure to recall many fraudulent schemes. They met to discuss the
aspects of the stop undermines the district court’s organization and plan activities in furtherance of the
credibility finding, and therefore, any probable cause. enterprise, including mail fraud, wire fraud, and
murder, as prohibited by RICO. This evidence supports
Onyeri’s contentions are misleading. Officer Uresti also the jury’s determination that two or more people agreed

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