State v. Falkin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to investigate potential intoxication when the vehicle drifted back and forth within its lane below the posted speed limit; agreeing with the trial court’s characterization of the driving as “erratic”
• indicating that reasonable suspicion does not require “proof of the actual commission of the offense”
• holding law enforcement officer had reasonable suspicion to investigate potential intoxication where car drifted back and forth within its lane
• noting that proof of the actual moving violation is not required to support reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop
• stating that “[t]he ultimate question of whether [the officer] was indeed ‘justified in stopping 1 Appellant’s Jeep, we review de novo.”
• noting that Section 550.021(a) “embodies multiple statutory requirements”—to “stop,” “return,” and “remain’’—and that a defendant “could be convicted for failing to comply with any one of them”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).