Opinion
No. 05-02-00880-CR.
Opinion issued January 30, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 366-81701-01. AFFIRMED.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, RICHTER, and FRANCIS.
OPINION
Michael Duane Lee pleaded guilty to possessing more than four grams but less than 200 grams of methamphetamine, after entering a plea of true to an enhancement paragraph, sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. In a single point of error, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm. Collin County sheriff's deputy Michael Fichtl was assigned to a DEA task force and had received a tip that appellant was trafficking drugs. Fichtl was following appellant, who was traveling south on the access road of U.S. 75 in McKinney. Appellant stopped for a red light at the intersection with U.S. 380, and Fichtl pulled up beside him in an unmarked car. Deputy Billy Lanier pulled up behind appellant. Appellant was in a lane in which a driver could go straight or turn left. When the light turned green, appellant began to move through the intersection, activated his turn signal, and turned left. Deputies stopped appellant for violating article 545.104(b) of the Texas Transportation Code, failing to signal a turn the last 100 feet of movement of the vehicle prior to the turn. Deputies found methamphetamine on appellant. Appellant contends the initial stop was illegal. While he acknowledges that he did not signal the requisite 100 feet before turning, he stresses he did signal before making the turn. He asserts that had he begun signaling earlier, traffic behind him "could have interpreted the signal as an intent to use the U-turn lane, which immediately preceded the intersection." He argues that the objective of Chapter 545 of the transportation code is the "safe, orderly regulation of traffic turns," and his belated signal did not create "any unsafe traffic paradigm." We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress through a bifurcated standard of review; we give almost total deference to the trial court's express or implied determination of historical fact and review de novo the court's application of the law of search and seizure to those facts. See State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Here, the facts are undisputed; thus, we review de novo the trial court's application of the law to the particular facts of this case. Article 545.104(b) provides: An operator intending to turn a vehicle right or left shall signal continuously for not less than the last 100 feet of movement of the vehicle before the turn. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. art. 545.104(b) (Vernon 1999). A driver's failure to properly signal before making a turn is an objective basis for stopping the vehicle. Walter v. State, 997 S.W.2d 853, 858 (Tex.App.-Austin 1999), rev'd on other grounds, 28 S.W.3d 538 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) . As long as an actual violation occurs, law enforcement officials are free to enforce the laws and detain a person for that violation, regardless of whatever the usual practices and standards of the local law enforcement agency are and regardless of the officer's subjective reasons for the detention. Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). It is undisputed that appellant failed to signal continuously for 100 feet; thus, he violated section 545.104(b) of the transportation code. Consequently, the deputies were authorized to stop appellant. We reject his argument that obeying the statute could be confusing to people following him. As argued by the State, the purpose of a turn signal is to alert other drivers that a vehicle is about to turn; it is not to give detailed directions on where the exact turn will occur. We overrule the point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.