Opinion
No. 05-06-01603-CR
Opinion Issued October 11, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 005-83855-06.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices FRANCIS and MALONEY.
OPINION
The trial court found San Juanita Rodriquez guilty of driving while intoxicated and assessed sixty days' confinement in jail and a $500 fine, suspended the imposition of the jail sentence, placed her on community supervision for twelve months, and certified appellant's right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress the search of her vehicle. In one issue, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in overruling her written motion to suppress evidence. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
BACKGROUND
Takayuki Yoshida, a Richardson Police Officer, began following appellant's vehicle because she was driving twenty-miles-per-hour in a forty-mile-per-hour zone on a practically deserted road-only one other vehicle was on the road. Her speed called the officer's attention to appellant and he followed her vehicle. Because her license plate bracket obscured the word "Texas," he stopped her vehicle. Appellant moved to suppress all evidence seized and all statements of appellant as well as any testimony relating to her arrest and detention. After the trial court denied her motion to suppress, appellant and the State entered into a plea bargain agreement. A condition of the agreement allowed appellant to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress if she pleaded guilty. The trial court followed the plea bargain agreement.SHOULD THE TRIAL COURT HAVE DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE?
In appellant's sole point of error, she argues the trial court abused its discretion in overruling her motion to suppress. Specifically, she contends the license plate frame did not violate section 502.409 of the Texas Transportation Code. Thus, the officer did not have "reasonable suspicion or probable cause" to stop appellant. The State replies that the evidence shows that the license-plate frame did violate section 502.409 because it "obscured the design elements of her license plate" and the statute does not require the "complete obstruction" of the license plate. Additionally, the officer "testified he could not read the word 'Texas' at all." The State argues State v. Johnson, 219 S.W.3d 386 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) controls. We agree. Section 502.409(a) of the transportation code provides as follows: (a) [a] person commits an offense if the person attaches to or displays on a motor vehicle a number plate or registration insignia that:* * *
(6) . . . interferes with the readability of the letters or numbers on the plate or the name of the state in which the vehicle is registered; or(7) has a coating, covering, or protective material that:
(A) distorts angular visibility or detectability; or
(B) alters or obscures the letters or numbers on the plate, the color of the plate, or another original design feature of the plate.Act of May 28, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 837, § 2, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 2625, 2625, amended by, Act of Apr. 19, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 30, § 1, Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 28, 29 (Vernon) (to be codified as an amendment of Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 502.409(a)). At 3:00 a.m., Takayuki was on routine patrol when he first saw appellant's vehicle. Her speed, twenty-miles-per-hour in a forty-mile-per-hour zone, called the officer's attention to appellant and he followed her vehicle. Takayuki stopped appellant's vehicle because her license plate bracket "entirely" obscured the word "Texas." Appellant did not have her driver's license with her. Appellant testified that she had not changed her license plate holder and license plate in any way. She offered, and the trial court admitted, photographs of her truck's license plates. Appellant maintained that the photographs accurately depicted her license plates as they existed on the day in question and the day of the hearing. Those photographs show that appellant's license plate had the bottom portion of "Texas" centered at the tops and "Truck" centered underneath "Texas" with the license plate number below. Appellant argued at trial and on appeal that Johnson does not apply because Johnson's license bracket completely obscured the words "The Lone Star State." The Johnson opinion refers to the Johnson's license plate as "the standard Texas design." 219 S.W.3d at 387. The Johnson court attached a black and white copy of an exhibit showing the license plate and holder to its opinion. Id. at 389. However, the Johnson opinion recites that the license plate in question "partially obscured the word 'Texas,' fully obscured the nickname 'Lone Star State', and obscured a depiction of a space shuttle in a nighttime sky." Id. The Johnson Court discussed the obscuring of the word "Texas" as well as the original design features of that license plate. The court then discussed that the Texas legislature amended 502.409 9a) (7) after the Fifth Circuit held in Granado that a motorist did not violate the law if the license plate holder obscured the name of the issuing state. U.S. v. Granado, 302 F.3d 421, 424 (5th Cir. 2002). Subsequently, in United State v. Contreras-Trevino, 448 F.3d 821, 824 (5th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 447 (2006), the Fifth Circuit concluded that the State's name "is literally, 'letters or numbers on the plate,' [and] . . . 'an original design feature of the plate'" which violated section 502.409 (a)(6), (7). We affirm the trial court's judgment.