person for a traffic violation in Texas

2016DISCUSSION Detaining a Passenger and Obtaining Identification 3 In his first issue, Appellant does not question the validity of the initial traffic stop, stating that “even though the motive of the officers was nefarious and pre-textual, they clearly had the authority to stop a vehicle which had committed even a minor traffic violation within their view.” See Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (an officer may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation the officer witnesses); see also Jaganathan v. Texas, 479 S.W.3d 244, 247 (Tex.Crim.App. 2015) (the decisi

2016DISCUSSION Detaining a Passenger and Obtaining Identification 3 In his first issue, Appellant does not question the validity of the initial traffic stop, stating that “even though the motive of the officers was nefarious and pre-textual, they clearly had the authority to stop a vehicle which had committed even a minor traffic violation within their view.” See Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (an officer may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation the officer witnesses); see also Jaganathan v. Texas, 479 S.W.3d 244, 247 (Tex.Crim.App. 2015) (the decisi

2004It is well-established that a police officer “may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation.” McVickers v. State , 874 S.W.2d 662, 664 (Tex. Crim.

2004It is well-established that a police officer “may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation.” McVickers v. State , 874 S.W.2d 662, 664 (Tex. Crim.

2016DISCUSSION Detaining a Passenger and Obtaining Identification 3 In his first issue, Appellant does not question the validity of the initial traffic stop, stating that “even though the motive of the officers was nefarious and pre-textual, they clearly had the authority to stop a vehicle which had committed even a minor traffic violation within their view.” See Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (an officer may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation the officer witnesses); see also Jaganathan v. Texas, 479 S.W.3d 244, 247 (Tex.Crim.App. 2015) (the decisi

2016DISCUSSION Detaining a Passenger and Obtaining Identification 3 In his first issue, Appellant does not question the validity of the initial traffic stop, stating that “even though the motive of the officers was nefarious and pre-textual, they clearly had the authority to stop a vehicle which had committed even a minor traffic violation within their view.” See Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (an officer may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation the officer witnesses); see also Jaganathan v. Texas, 479 S.W.3d 244, 247 (Tex.Crim.App. 2015) (the decisi

2016DISCUSSION Detaining a Passenger and Obtaining Identification 3 In his first issue, Appellant does not question the validity of the initial traffic stop, stating that “even though the motive of the officers was nefarious and pre-textual, they clearly had the authority to stop a vehicle which had committed even a minor traffic violation within their view.” See Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (an officer may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation the officer witnesses); see also Jaganathan v. Texas, 479 S.W.3d 244, 247 (Tex.Crim.App. 2015) (the decisi

2016DISCUSSION Detaining a Passenger and Obtaining Identification 3 In his first issue, Appellant does not question the validity of the initial traffic stop, stating that “even though the motive of the officers was nefarious and pre-textual, they clearly had the authority to stop a vehicle which had committed even a minor traffic violation within their view.” See Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (an officer may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation the officer witnesses); see also Jaganathan v. Texas, 479 S.W.3d 244, 247 (Tex.Crim.App. 2015) (the decisi

2011Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Zervos v. State, 15 S.W.3d 146, 151 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd).

2011Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Zervos v. State, 15 S.W.3d 146, 151 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd).

2008See Whren v. United States , 517 U.S. 806, 810 , 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1772 (1996); McVickers v. State , 874 S.W.2d 662, 664 (Tex. Crim.

2008See Whren v. United States , 517 U.S. 806, 810 , 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1772 (1996); McVickers v. State , 874 S.W.2d 662, 664 (Tex. Crim.

2002Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); McVickers v. State, 874 S.W.2d 662, 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (officer may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation); see Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (as long as actual violation occurs, police are free to enforce law and detain person for that violation, regardless of officers’ subjective reasons); Howard v. State, 888 S.W.2d 166, 172 (Tex.App.-Waco 1994, pet. ref'd) (stop is lawful if officer has reasonable suspicion of traffic violation either on the automobile or by one of the

2000App. 1993) (officer may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation); see also Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex. Crim. 4 App. 1992 ) (as long as an actual violation occurs, police are free to enforce laws and detain a person for that violation, regardless of usual practices or subjective reasons); Howard v. State, 888 S.W.2d 166, 172 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref’d) (stop is lawful if officer has reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation either on the automobile or by one of the automobile’s occupants).

2021App. 1995); see also Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538, 542 (Tex. Crim.

2012See Walter, 28 S.W.3d at 542 (holding that a law enforcement officer may lawfully stop a motorist when the officer has probable cause to believe that the motorist has committed a traffic violation); Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (holding that an officer may lawfully stop and reasonably detain a person for a traffic violation).

2008See Garcia, 827 S.W.2d at 944 (providing that a law enforcement officer may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation committed in the officer's presence); Appling v. State, 904 S.W.2d 912, 916-17 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1995, pet. ref'd) (finding that the stop and detention of appellant for the traffic violation was reasonable under Fourth Amendment principles, regardless of the officer's motive for doing so).

2008See Garcia , 827 S.W.2d at 944 (providing that a law enforcement officer may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation committed in the officer's presence); Appling v. State , 904 S.W.2d 912, 916-17 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1995, pet. ref'd) (finding that the stop and detention of appellant for the traffic violation was reasonable under Fourth Amendment principles, regardless of the officer's motive for doing so).

2007A law enforcement officer may validly stop and detain a person for a traffic violation. (footnote: 3) Lemmons v. State, 133 S.W.3d 751, 755-56 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref’d).

2007A law-enforcement officer may validly stop and detain a person for a traffic violation. (5) Lemmons v. State , 133 S.W.3d 751, 756 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd); see Garcia v. State , 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex. Crim.

2002Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); McVickers v. State, 874 S.W.2d 662, 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (officer may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation); see Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (as long as actual violation occurs, police are free to enforce law and detain person for that violation, regardless of officers’ subjective reasons); Howard v. State, 888 S.W.2d 166, 172 (Tex.App.-Waco 1994, pet. ref'd) (stop is lawful if officer has reasonable suspicion of traffic violation either on the automobile or by one of the

2002Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); McVickers v. State, 874 S.W.2d 662, 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (officer may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation); see Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (as long as actual violation occurs, police are free to enforce law and detain person for that violation, regardless of officers’ subjective reasons); Howard v. State, 888 S.W.2d 166, 172 (Tex.App.-Waco 1994, pet. ref'd) (stop is lawful if officer has reasonable suspicion of traffic violation either on the automobile or by one of the

2021An officer may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic violation committed in an officer’s presence, and an “objectively valid traffic stop is not unlawful [] just because the detaining officer had some ulterior motive for making it.” Crittenden v. State, 899 S.W.2d 668, 674 (Tex. Crim.

2017Chapnick v. State, 25 S.W.3d 875, 877 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d).

2010See Armitage v. State , 637 S.W.2d 936, 939 (Tex. Crim.

2007App. 1992) (police officers' stop and detention of defendant for stop-sign violation reasonable under Fourth Amendment principles); Hargrove v. State , 40 S.W.3d 556, 559 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd) (reasonable suspicion for stop existed when detective testified officers made traffic stop based on driver's failure to signal lane change); Tex. Dep't of Pub.

2006Fox v. State , 900 S.W.2d 345, 347 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995), pet. dism’d as improvidently granted , 930 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim.

2002Reasonable suspicion is defined as “something less than probable cause.” Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240, 244 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).

2000See McVickers v. State, 874 S.W.2d 662, 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1993); see also Gajewski v. State, 944 S.W.2d 450, 453 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.).

1992Stat. Ann. art. 6701d, § 153 (1977). § 153 provides: "Any peace officer is authorized to arrest without a warrant any person committing a violation of any provision of [the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways]." In addressing the matter of an officer's authority to arrest a person for a traffic violation and conduct a search incident thereto, the court in Snyder v. State , 629 S.W.2d 930, 934 (Tex. Crim.