Page 37 - TPA Journal March April 2024

of travel, and that he initiated a traffic failing to maintain a single lane by swerving into
stop for failure to maintain a single another lane, whether or not this movement could
lane after he observed Hardin’s tires be done safely.” We hold that the court of appeals
cross over the striped lines marking did not err and affirm.
the center lane without Hardin signal-
ing a lane change, although there were As the court of appeals correctly noted, we review
no other vehicles in the vicinity at the a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress under
time or any other circumstance to sug- a bifurcated standard of review. We give almost
gest that this movement was unsafe. total deference to a trial court’s determination of
The trial court further finds that a historical facts and credibility when supported by
video recording of Hardin’s vehicle the record. Likewise, we afford almost total def-
made at the time of these observations erence to a trial court’s ruling on mixed questions
and entered into evidence at the hear- of law and fact, if the resolution to those questions
ing on [the] motion to suppress sup- turns on the evaluation of credibility and
ports Officer Alfaro’s testimony. demeanor.4 When the trial court makes explicit
fact findings, as the trial court did in this case, we
2. The Court further finds there was determine whether the evidence (viewed in the
no evidence concerning the time of light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling) sup-
alleged burglaries or the BOLO ports these fact findings.
regarding the U-Haul, the source of We review legal conclusions, such as the con-
the information that a U-Haul was struction of a statute, de novo.
involved in burglaries in the area, or
the reliability of the source, and there A warrantless traffic stop is a Fourth Amendment
was no description of the vehicle seizure that is analogous to temporary detention;
regarding size, license plate, etc., from thus, it must be justified by reasonable suspicion.
which an officer could reasonably sus- If an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a per-
pect Defendant’s vehicle might be son has committed a traffic violation, the officer
involved in or have evidence of crim- may conduct a traffic stop. Reasonable suspicion
inal activity. exists if the officer has specific articulable facts
that, combined with rational inferences from those
The trial court concluded that, based upon these facts, would lead the officer to reasonably con-
facts, Officer Alfaro lacked reasonable suspicion clude the person is, has been, or soon will be
to stop Appellee for committing a traffic offense. engaged in criminal activity. When making a
The State appealed, arguing that the trial court determination of reasonable suspicion, we consid-
erred in holding Officer Alfaro lacked reasonable er the totality of the circumstances.
suspicion to stop Appellee for committing a traffic
offense. The only argument the State raised on Here, the question of whether there was reason-
appeal was that the failure to maintain a single able suspicion to detain Appellee is not a function
lane is a traffic violation, regardless of whether or of Officer Alfaro’s demeanor or credibility.
not it was safe to do so, and that violation provid- Instead, it turns on the application of a traffic
ed reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. The statute to uncontested facts. To resolve the dispute
court of appeals rejected this argument and in this case, we must first construe Transportation
affirmed the trial court’s order suppressing the evi- Code §545.060, “Driving on Roadway Laned for
dence. The State filed a petition for discretionary Traffic.” Statutory construction is a question of
review. We granted review to consider whether law that we review de novo.
“The Thirteenth Court of Appeals erred in con- When we interpret statues, we seek to effectuate
cluding that the officer who stopped Hardin’s the collective intent or purpose of the legislators
vehicle lacked reasonable suspicion to stop her for
who enacted the legislation. In doing so, we nec-

March/April 2024 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 33