absence of a traffic violation in Texas

2013See James v. State, 102 S.W.3d 162, 172 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d); Cook v. State, 63 S.W.3d 924, 929 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d). 5 See also McQuarters v. 5 We review the legal question of whether the totality of circumstances is sufficient to support an officer’s reasonable suspicion de novo.

2011James v. State, 102 S.W.3d 162, 172 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d ); McQuarters v. State , 58 S.W.3d 250, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d ) (stop justified based on reasonable suspicion that defendant, who crossed the left lane stripe twice, was intoxicated); Cook v. State , 63 S.W.3d 924, 929 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d ) (reasoning that even if defendant’s driving did not constitute a traffic violation, it did provide reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving while intoxicated).

2013See James v. State, 102 S.W.3d 162, 172 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d); Cook v. State, 63 S.W.3d 924, 929 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d). 5 See also McQuarters v. 5 We review the legal question of whether the totality of circumstances is sufficient to support an officer’s reasonable suspicion de novo.

2011James v. State, 102 S.W.3d 162, 172 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d ); McQuarters v. State , 58 S.W.3d 250, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d ) (stop justified based on reasonable suspicion that defendant, who crossed the left lane stripe twice, was intoxicated); Cook v. State , 63 S.W.3d 924, 929 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d ) (reasoning that even if defendant’s driving did not constitute a traffic violation, it did provide reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving while intoxicated).

2011James v. State, 102 S.W.3d 162, 172 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d); McQuarters v. State, 58 S.W.3d 250, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d) (stop justified based on reasonable suspicion that defendant, who crossed the left lane stripe twice, was intoxicated); Cook v. State, 63 S.W.3d 924, 929 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) (reasoning that even if defendant’s driving did not constitute a traffic violation, it did provide reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving while intoxicated).

2011James v. State, 102 S.W.3d 162, 172 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d ); McQuarters v. State , 58 S.W.3d 250, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d ) (stop justified based on reasonable suspicion that defendant, who crossed the left lane stripe twice, was intoxicated); Cook v. State , 63 S.W.3d 924, 929 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d ) (reasoning that even if defendant’s driving did not constitute a traffic violation, it did provide reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving while intoxicated).

1998Id. at 452 (emphasis added).

1998Indeed, the central issue was whether Gajewski’s driving could give rise to a reasonable suspicion of intoxication even in the absence of a traffic violation: Although not an inherently illegal act, when the officer observed [Gajewski’s) car weaving between traffic lanes, reasonable suspicion existed to believe [Gajewski] was driving the motor vehicle while intoxicated, or that some activity out of the ordinary is or has occurred, so as to justify the temporary stop of [Gajewski’s] car. *872 Id. at 452 (emphasis added).

2013It is well-established that a law enforcement officer may lawfully stop an individual for a traffic violation; Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538, 542 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000), and, even in the absence of a traffic violation, an officer is justified in stopping a driver based on reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated.