Texas Court of Appeals
State v. Vinson
No. 01-22-00747-CR 12/28/23
Issue:
Can an officer initiate a traffic stop for an observed traffic violation that is corrected by the driver before the officer initiates the stop?
Holding:
Yes. Law enforcement has probable cause to stop a vehicle when a traffic violation is observed. Here, the officer saw the defendant’s vehicle being operated without lights at 12:40 a.m. in violation of Transportation Code §547.302(a)(1). Even though the driver turned on his lights before the officer initiated the stop, the officer’s probable cause to stop the vehicle was not negated. Read opinion.
Commentary:
An officer may stop a vehicle on two legal bases: (1) the officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle (or its occupant(s)) committed an offense—e.g., speeding, failure to signal, expired registration; or (2) the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the vehicle (or its occupant(s)) has committed, is committing, or soon will commit an offense, and is initiating the stop to investigate further—e.g., DWI. As the court reminds us here, when an officer witnesses a traffic infraction, he has both probable cause and reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop.
Additionally, an offense is complete when all of its elements have been committed, even if the defendant makes subsequent, even immediate, remedial measures to try to “undo” the crime or remedy the harm caused—such as by placing shoplifted property back on the store shelf when a loss-prevention officer approaches, or by slowing down after having sped past a patrol car. Keep this case in mind if a defense attorney or the trial court in a suppression hearing becomes fixated on the lawfulness of the defendant’s conduct at the time of the actual stop or detention, whenever that may be, rather than at the time that the officer observed the defendant commit the offense.
State v. Jivani
No. 05-23-00839-CR 12/28/23
Issue:
Does a constitutional court of appeals have jurisdiction to consider a ruling from a county criminal court of appeals upholding a municipal court’s finding that a city ordinance was facially unconstitutional?
Holding:
No. The defendant was charged with violating a Dallas ordinance. The defendant filed a motion to quash, arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The municipal court agreed the ordinance was facially unconstitutional. After the Dallas County Criminal Court of Appeals affirmed the municipal court, the State then appealed to the 5th District Court of Appeals. Applying Government Code §30.00027(a)(2), the 5th Court noted that a party has a right for a constitutional court of appeals to review a case only when there is a constitutional issue “on which a conviction is based.” Here, because the motion to quash was granted by the municipal court, there was no conviction. Thus, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Read Opinion.
Dissent (Goldstein, J.):
The State’s right to an appeal is based on Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 44.01(a)(1): “(a) The state is entitled to appeal an order of a court in a criminal case if the order: (1) dismisses an indictment, information, or complaint or any portion of an indictment, information, or complaint.” Government Code Chapter 30 does not trump the State’s right to appeal under Art. 44.01. And the majority’s holding produces an absurd result in which a county court of appeals becomes the final authority on the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance but leaves no recourse to be heard by a constitutional appellate court. Read dissent.
Commentary:
Appellate practitioners, this one’s for you. This case is not about the merits of whether the underlying Dallas ordinance is facially unconstitutional; rather, it concerns a dispute as to which judicial body is the final arbiter of that constitutional question when the State is the appellant. Given the nature of this dispute—which involves not only a conflict of opinions among the justices of the Fifth Court of Appeals, but also a conflict as to which statute governs the State’s right of appeal in this scenario (Code of Criminal Procedure Article 44.01(a)(1) or Government Code §30.00024(a)(2))—you should expect the State to seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and that the CCA will want to weigh in.