Page 40 - TPA Journal March April 2024

conflict with Transportation Code § 545.103, this argument, the failure to maintain a single lane
which prohibits a driver from moving right or left constitutes an offense because it amounts to the
on a roadway unless that movement can be made failure to perform an act required by the
safely. Reading the two statutory subsections as Transportation Code, and the movement from a
interconnected and dependent on each other is the lane in an unsafe manner also constitutes an inde-
only way to give effect to not only the statute at pendent offense because it amounts to the perfor-
issue but also the statue’s place within the legisla- mance of a prohibited act. We disagree.
tive scheme. Consequently, we hold that a person
only violates Transportation Code § 545.060(a) if This interpretation of the statute assumes what it
the person fails to maintain a single marked lane seeks to prove. The general offense provision
of traffic in an unsafe manner. found in § 542.301 speaks to the general require-
ment that all violations of the Transportation Code
In this case, we are only concerned with whether must involve either an act or a failure to act. It
there was reasonable suspicion for Officer Alfaro does not set out the elements of any specific
to stop Appellee for violating § 545.060(a). The offense. Nor does it clarify how to construe a
trial court found that Appellee’s tires crossed over statute that characterizes the same conduct as both
the striped lines marking the center lane without the failure to perform a required act and the per-
Appellee signaling a lane change. This finding is formance of a prohibited act. For example, §
supported by the record, including a video of 545.066 of the Transportation Code describes two
Appellee’s driving before the stop, which shows separate acts, stopping before reaching a school
the right rear wheel of Appellee’s U-Haul driving bus when the bus is operating a visual signal and
on and slightly over the lane divider for a few sec- starting again before one of three events occurs,
onds. But the trial court also found that there were namely the bus resumes motion, the bus driver
no other vehicles in the vicinity at the time or any signals the operator to proceed, or the visual sign
other circumstances that would suggest that is no longer actuated. The State’s reading of §
Appellee’s movement was unsafe. This finding is 542.301 can apply easily to that statute because it
also supported by the record, and the State does deals with two separate acts. But § 545.060 only
not challenge it on appeal. Given these findings, deals with one act—moving out of a single
we agree with the court of appeals that the trial marked lane—even though the statute character-
court did not err in granting Appellee’s motion to izes that conduct as both an act and a failure to act.
suppress because without any evidence suggest- The general offense provision found in § 542.301
ing that this movement was unsafe, Officer Alfaro does not speak to that type of situation.
lacked reasonable suspicion to stop her vehicle.
At most, the record shows that Appellee drove “as Given this context, § 542.301 is best understood
nearly as practical” entirely within a single lane, as a general provision recognizing that violating a
which is not a traffic violation. traffic regulation amounts to a criminal offense
regardless of whether the violation flows from an
The State urges us to adopt the position taken by act or a failure to act. That section does not sug-
four judges of this Court in Leming v. State. gest how to determine whether a particular
Under that position, the “offense” for failure to Transportation Code section sets out a single
maintain a single lane is found in § 542.301 of the offense, multiple different ways of committing the
Transportation Code, not in § 545.060, which same offense, or multiple different offenses.
nevertheless sets out the elements of the offense. Determining those issues requires examination of
Section 542.301 states that a person commits an the specific statutes that actually require or pro-
offense “if the person performs an act prohibited scribe conduct. Moreover, this interpretation fails
or fails to perform an act required” by the applic- to account for the history of the statute. The origi-
able subtitle of the Transportation Code. Under nal statutory provision, Article 6701d, §60, was

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