COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HOLDS KAUFMAN DA AND DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS MISUNDERSTOOD TRAFFIC CODE



 This week the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals at Dallas in a marijuana case where the defendant was convicted by the District Attorney in Kaufman County. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decided that, since driving in the left lane without passing was not a traffic violation, the defendant should not have been stopped by a Kaufman County sheriff's deputy. Consequently, there was no basis to search the defendant or his vehicle.

The male driver was followed for a mile by the sheriff's deputy, who observed that the driver was staying in the left hand lane, although there were no cars in the right hand land for him to pass. Drug crimes. The deputy pulled the driver over and arrested him after discovering marijuana in his possession. The driver was charged with possessing under two ounces of marijuana.

The trial court refused to suppress the marijuana as evidence against the driver. Although the driver argued that he did not know the left lane was for passing only, the trial court ruled that a sign reading "Left lane for passing only" (located about fifteen to twenty miles away from the location where the deputy first observed the driver) was sufficient to give the driver warning. The Dallas Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court, and the driver appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that there was no reason to believe the driver had passed the sign before he was pulled over by the deputy. The Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices requires regulatory traffic signs to be installed at or near the place where the traffic regulations apply. Because the driver was pulled over so far away from the "Left lane for passing only" sign, he was not bound by the regulation, and he should not have been pulled over.

In summary, the decision illustrates that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to cars, although with some limitations. (Generally, a home receives greater Fourth Amendment protection than a vehicle.) However, police officers need a valid reason to pull a driver over in the first place before they proceed with a search of the vehicle. In this case, because the deputy did not have a proper reason to pull the driver over, he did not have the authority to perform a search of his car. For that reason, the marijuana was suppressed as evidence against the driver in his criminal case.

My good friend Dan Wood represented the Defendant during the entire appellate process, and he did an amazing job obtaining the ultimate ruling favorable to the Defendant in this important case; Kudos to Dan!

Комментарии

Популярные сообщения из этого блога

CRIMINAL APPEALS COURT REMINDS OFFICERS THAT THEY CANNOT STAY FOR DINNER AFTER ASKED TO LEAVE

TEXAS LAW BOND CONSIDERATIONS APPLY IN DALLAS COURTS

HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS BLAMES DEFENDANT FOR TEXAS ATTORNEY'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE IMMIGRATION WARNINGS