citation error in Texas

2010See id. at 63–64; see also Powell v. State , 5 S.W.3d 369 , 378–79 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. ref’d) (stating that a traffic stop investigation is not fully resolved until a computer check is completed; the officer knows that the driver has a currently valid license, no outstanding warrants, and the car is not stolen; and that the officer issues either a citation or warning).

2010See id. at 63–64; see also Powell v. State, 5 S.W.3d 369 , 378–79 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. ref’d) (stating that a traffic stop investigation is not fully resolved until a computer check is completed; the officer knows that the driver has a currently valid license, no outstanding warrants, and the car is not stolen; and that the officer issues 21 either a citation or warning).

2010See id. at 63–64; see also Powell v. State , 5 S.W.3d 369 , 378–79 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. ref’d) (stating that a traffic stop investigation is not fully resolved until a computer check is completed; the officer knows that the driver has a currently valid license, no outstanding warrants, and the car is not stolen; and that the officer issues either a citation or warning).

2010See id. at 63–64; see also Powell v. State, 5 S.W.3d 369 , 378–79 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. ref’d) (stating that a traffic stop investigation is not fully resolved until a computer check is completed; the officer knows that the driver has a currently valid license, no outstanding warrants, and the car is not stolen; and that the officer issues 21 either a citation or warning).

2015Although the record does not reveal whether Thompson intended to issue a citation or warning to Fisher when he asked Fisher to step to the back of the ear the second time, “[t]raffic stops are ‘especially fraught with danger to police officers’ ..., so an officer may need to take certain negligibly burdensome precautions in order to complete his mission safely.” Id. at 1616 (quoting Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 330 , 129 S.Ct. 781 , 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009)).

2015Ed. 2d 492, *509 ; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 2807 , **35 fact that Officer Struble delivered the warning prior to the dog sniff and proclaims that the authority to detain based on a traffic stop ends when a citation or warning is handed over to the driver.

2024Id. at 187–88.

2022See id. at 194 (holding traffic stop not unduly prolonged where officer “had not yet completed all aspects of the traffic stop at the 3 See, e.g., United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 511 (5th Cir. 2004) (“There is . . . no constitutional stopwatch on traffic stops.”). 10 point that Appellant fled”); Fisher, 481 S.W.3d at 403 (holding traffic stop not unduly prolonged where officer had not yet issued citation or warning, rendering mission of stop incomplete).

2022Thus, Appellant argues, Officer Wooden prolonged the stop beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket or a warning for the traffic violation when he returned to Appellant’s vehicle to “see what [he could] figure out.” See Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 350 (“A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation . . . ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” (quoting Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407 ) (alterations in original)).

2015See Id. at **10 (“A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation.”\(emphasis added); see also Id. (“Like a Terry stop, the tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s “mission” - to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop”)(citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, at 407 (2005)).

2025See Kothe, 152 S.W.3d at 64 ; Thompson v. State, 408 S.W.3d 614, 622 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.).

2024See Abney, 394 S.W.3d at 548 .

2024See Jagnathan, 479 S.W.3d at 247 ; Derichsweiler, 348 S.W.3d at 914 ; Rodriguez, 578 S.W.3d at 419- 20; Hamal, 390 S.W.3d at 308 ; Leday, 3 S.W.3d at 672 .

2022See id. at 194 (holding traffic stop not unduly prolonged where officer “had not yet completed all aspects of the traffic stop at the 3 See, e.g., United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 511 (5th Cir. 2004) (“There is . . . no constitutional stopwatch on traffic stops.”). 10 point that Appellant fled”); Fisher, 481 S.W.3d at 403 (holding traffic stop not unduly prolonged where officer had not yet issued citation or warning, rendering mission of stop incomplete).

2015Id.; see Johnson, 555 U.S. at 331 , 129 S.Ct. 781 (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 111 n. 6, 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (“[O]nce a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures.”)).

2015Id.; see Johnson, 555 U.S. at 331 , 129 S.Ct. 781 (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 111 n. 6, 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (“[O]nce a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures.”)).

2015Although the record does not reveal whether Thompson intended to issue a citation or warning to Fisher when he asked Fisher to step to the back of the ear the second time, “[t]raffic stops are ‘especially fraught with danger to police officers’ ..., so an officer may need to take certain negligibly burdensome precautions in order to complete his mission safely.” Id. at 1616 (quoting Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 330 , 129 S.Ct. 781 , 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009)).

2015Although the record does not reveal whether Thompson intended to issue a citation or warning to Fisher when he asked Fisher to step to the back of the ear the second time, “[t]raffic stops are ‘especially fraught with danger to police officers’ ..., so an officer may need to take certain negligibly burdensome precautions in order to complete his mission safely.” Id. at 1616 (quoting Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 330 , 129 S.Ct. 781 , 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009)).

2014A judgment or order is void when it is apparent that the court rendering it lacked jurisdiction of either the parties or the subject matter of the lawsuit.8 For a trial court to have jurisdiction over a party, the party must be properly before the court in the pending controversy as authorized by procedural statutes and rules.9 A trial court does not have jurisdiction to enter a judgment or order against a respondent unless the record shows proper service of citation on the respondent.10 A void order has no force or effect and confers no rights; it is a mere nullity.11 Thus, failure to serve a

2014A judgment or order is void when it is apparent that the court rendering it lacked jurisdiction of either the parties or the subject matter of the lawsuit.8 For a trial court to have jurisdiction over a party, the party must be properly before the court in the pending controversy as authorized by procedural statutes and rules.9 A trial court does not have jurisdiction to enter a judgment or order against a respondent unless the record shows proper service of citation on the respondent.10 A void order has no force or effect and confers no rights; it is a mere nullity.11 Thus, failure to serve a

2014A judgment or order is void when it is apparent that the court rendering it lacked jurisdiction of either the parties or the subject matter of the lawsuit.8 For a trial court to have jurisdiction over a party, the party must be properly before the court in the pending controversy as authorized by procedural statutes and rules.9 A trial court does not have jurisdiction to enter a judgment or order against a respondent unless the record shows proper service of citation on the respondent.10 A void order has no force or effect and confers no rights; it is a mere nullity.11 Thus, failure to serve a

2014A judgment or order is void when it is apparent that the court rendering it lacked jurisdiction of either the parties or the subject matter of the lawsuit.8 For a trial court to have jurisdiction over a party, the party must be properly before the court in the pending controversy as authorized by procedural statutes and rules.9 A trial court does not have jurisdiction to enter a judgment or order against a respondent unless the record shows proper service of citation on the respondent.10 A void order has no force or effect and confers no rights; it is a mere nullity.11 Thus, failure to serve a

2014ESTATES CODE § 1051.103(a) (emphasis added). 5 Ortiz v. Gutierrez, 792 S.W.2d 118, 119 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1989, writ dism'd). 6 In re Guardianship of Castanon, 2007 WL 700987 , at *2 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.); In re Mask, 198 S.W.3d 231, 234 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding). -8- procedures; only through strict compliance with these service requirements is the probate court’s jurisdiction invoked.7 This right to notice and due process is so fundamental that a court will not retain personal jurisdiction over a proposed ward until the citation requirement has been fulf

2014ESTATES CODE § 1051.103(a) (emphasis added). 5 Ortiz v. Gutierrez, 792 S.W.2d 118, 119 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1989, writ dism'd). 6 In re Guardianship of Castanon, 2007 WL 700987 , at *2 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.); In re Mask, 198 S.W.3d 231, 234 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding). -8- procedures; only through strict compliance with these service requirements is the probate court’s jurisdiction invoked.7 This right to notice and due process is so fundamental that a court will not retain personal jurisdiction over a proposed ward until the citation requirement has been fulf

2011Co. v. State, 86 S.W.2d 826, 831-32 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1935, writ dism’d), also cited by appellants.