FILED IN 1 th 4 COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TX 3:27 pm, Oct 08, 2015 KEITH E. HOTTLE 1 REPORTER'S RECORD CLERK OF THE COURT VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUME 2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2015-CV-03073
3 FRANCISCO J. * IN THE COUNTY COURT GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, * 4 APPELLANT, * VS. * AT LAW NO. 3 5 * TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC * 6 SAFETY, * APPELLEE. * BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS 7 **************************************************************
8 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS JULY 31, 2015 9 ************************************************************** 10 On the 31st day of July, 2015, the following came on to
11 be heard in the above-entitled and numbered cause before the
12 Honorable Jason Wolff, Judge presiding, held in San Antonio,
13 Bexar County, Texas:
14 Proceedings reported by Stenographic Method.
23 * * * ORIGINAL * * *
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2 Mr. Adam Crawshaw LAW OFFICE OF ADAM CRAWSHAW, PLLC 3 SBOT NO. 24073017 630 Broadway Street 4 San Antonio, Texas 78215 Phone: (210)271-1523 5 Attorney for Appellant
6 Ms. Nancy Jo Bage Sorenson TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 7 SBOT NO. 24029846 8806 Broadway Street 8 San Antonio, Texas 78217 Phone: (210)804-5700 9 Attorney for Appellee
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 3
1 (Open court.)
2 THE COURT: 2015-CV-03073, Francisco Gonzalez
3 versus DPS.
4 MR. CRAWSHAW: Ready, Judge.
10:31AM 5 THE COURT: Good morning.
6 MS. SORENSON: Good morning.
7 THE COURT: Good morning. Mr. Crawshaw?
8 MR. CRAWSHAW: Yes, sir.
9 THE COURT: Your appeal, right?
10:32AM 10 MR. CRAWSHAW: Yes, it is.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MR. CRAWSHAW: Are you ready for me?
13 THE COURT: Sure.
14 MR. CRAWSHAW: Judge, the sole issue on appeal
10:32AM 15 is whether or not there's reasonable fact -- or facts in the
16 record to support Judge Lambright -- the administrative law
17 judge's decision -- finding. The only issue that I'm
18 appealing is whether or not there was reasonable suspicion for
19 the stop in this case. Reasonable suspicion or probable cause
10:32AM 20 for the stop is what DPS alleges in their original petition.
21 As far as the evidence for review goes, the most
22 important thing in this case is that a court shall reverse an
23 administrative decision if appellant's substantial rights have
24 been prejudiced because his findings are in violation of
10:32AM 25 constitutional or statutory provisions. It's cited in my
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 4
1 brief.
2 The reason for the stop in this case is because
3 my client made a U-turn from a left-turn-only lane. That's
4 the only thing that's in the police officer's report. There's
10:32AM 5 nothing in the transcript that elaborates on that reason --
6 that reason for the stop. And so because there's no facts
7 articulated in the record, there can -- the ALJ -- there's no
8 legal basis to find that there's reasonable suspicion or
9 probable cause for the stop.
10:33AM 10 THE COURT: I'm sorry? There was not testimony
11 at the hearing?
12 MR. CRAWSHAW: There was.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 MR. CRAWSHAW: But not on that point.
10:33AM 15 THE COURT: All right.
16 MR. CRAWSHAW: The only thing that's in the
17 police report, which is an exhibit that's attached to the
18 record, is that my client made a U-turn from a left-hand-turn
19 lane, which is not in itself a traffic violation. And so
10:33AM 20 because -- because that's not --
21 THE COURT: It can -- it may or it may not be,
22 right?
23 MR. CRAWSHAW: That's correct.
24 THE COURT: Okay.
10:33AM 25 MR. CRAWSHAW: But because there's no objective
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 5
1 facts in the record to support that finding, I think that
2 the -- the decision must be reversed.
3 THE COURT: All right.
4 MS. SORENSON: And I think you have a copy of
10:33AM 5 this, do you?
6 THE COURT: I do.
7 MS. SORENSON: Okay. And the -- really, the
8 standard of review is the most important thing here on appeal,
9 and I know you're very familiar with this. And we believe not
10:34AM 10 only does the record demonstrate some reasonable basis for the
11 ALJ's decision and more than a scintilla of evidence, but I
12 don't think that there's even an evidentiary ambiguity in this
13 case. He was -- the officer was subpoenaed by defense and did
14 appear at the hearing, but they elected not to ask him any
10:34AM 15 questions about the stop.
16 THE COURT: Well --
17 MS. SORENSON: Where the -- where the --
18 THE COURT: It might be good lawyering.
19 MS. SORENSON: Oh, oh, no. Yeah. No. I'm
10:34AM 20 not -- I'm just saying they didn't. And the evidence for --
21 and where the -- the evidence for the judge's decision is in
22 the officer's sworn report, which is just as valid as if he
23 testified at the hearing. It's in the paperwork. And, Judge,
24 it's on -- it's in the -- you have a copy of the --
10:35AM 25 THE COURT: You guys --
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 6
1 MS. SORENSON: -- record?
2 THE COURT: -- don't dispute that that's the
3 sole basis, is that --
4 MR. CRAWSHAW: No.
10:35AM 5 THE COURT: -- is a U-turn? No?
6 MR. CRAWSHAW: No.
7 MS. SORENSON: No, no.
8 THE COURT: You're not disputing that that's the
9 basis that the ALR judge made -- found reasonable suspicion
10:35AM 10 for the stop was a U-turn in a left-hand --
11 MS. SORENSON: That's correct, Judge. And so
12 the evidence for that -- what the judge based his -- and you
13 can see from his -- from his -- his decision exactly what he
14 says. And in the report -- the officer's report, it says that
10:35AM 15 he was monitoring traffic on Walzem. He observed the vehicle
16 traveling westbound in the left lane and then made a U-turn
17 through the, quote, left-only-turn lane on the eastbound side.
18 And when asked about why he did this, the defendant stated he
19 didn't know about the turn lane. So this was a left-only-turn
10:36AM 20 lane. Left only means left only, does not mean any other
21 kinds of turns, including a U-turn. And so -- and the judge
22 states in his decision that reasonable suspicion to stop or
23 detain defendant existed on that date. A Texas peace officer
24 observed defendant make a U-turn from a lane designated for
10:36AM 25 left turns only while operating a motor vehicle.
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 7
1 So there is actually specific, articulated facts
2 as to why he stopped him, because he made a U-turn through a
3 left-only-turn lane. So I think that is true.
4 As far as the -- there's more than a scintilla
10:36AM 5 of evidence because it's there in the record, in the peace
6 officer's sworn report, which is DPS 1 and it's in the first
7 tab.
8 Then, secondly, even if you -- oh, I'm sorry.
9 Whoops. And to discuss the -- the -- the city ordinance --
10:37AM 10 and I believe you have it in Mr. Crawshaw's very impressive
11 brief. And I mean that in sincerity. It was very -- you
12 know, it was very well done.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED IN 1 th 4 COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TX 3:27 pm, Oct 08, 2015 KEITH E. HOTTLE 1 REPORTER'S RECORD CLERK OF THE COURT VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUME 2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2015-CV-03073
3 FRANCISCO J. * IN THE COUNTY COURT GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, * 4 APPELLANT, * VS. * AT LAW NO. 3 5 * TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC * 6 SAFETY, * APPELLEE. * BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS 7 **************************************************************
8 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS JULY 31, 2015 9 ************************************************************** 10 On the 31st day of July, 2015, the following came on to
11 be heard in the above-entitled and numbered cause before the
12 Honorable Jason Wolff, Judge presiding, held in San Antonio,
13 Bexar County, Texas:
14 Proceedings reported by Stenographic Method.
23 * * * ORIGINAL * * *
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2 Mr. Adam Crawshaw LAW OFFICE OF ADAM CRAWSHAW, PLLC 3 SBOT NO. 24073017 630 Broadway Street 4 San Antonio, Texas 78215 Phone: (210)271-1523 5 Attorney for Appellant
6 Ms. Nancy Jo Bage Sorenson TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 7 SBOT NO. 24029846 8806 Broadway Street 8 San Antonio, Texas 78217 Phone: (210)804-5700 9 Attorney for Appellee
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 3
1 (Open court.)
2 THE COURT: 2015-CV-03073, Francisco Gonzalez
3 versus DPS.
4 MR. CRAWSHAW: Ready, Judge.
10:31AM 5 THE COURT: Good morning.
6 MS. SORENSON: Good morning.
7 THE COURT: Good morning. Mr. Crawshaw?
8 MR. CRAWSHAW: Yes, sir.
9 THE COURT: Your appeal, right?
10:32AM 10 MR. CRAWSHAW: Yes, it is.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MR. CRAWSHAW: Are you ready for me?
13 THE COURT: Sure.
14 MR. CRAWSHAW: Judge, the sole issue on appeal
10:32AM 15 is whether or not there's reasonable fact -- or facts in the
16 record to support Judge Lambright -- the administrative law
17 judge's decision -- finding. The only issue that I'm
18 appealing is whether or not there was reasonable suspicion for
19 the stop in this case. Reasonable suspicion or probable cause
10:32AM 20 for the stop is what DPS alleges in their original petition.
21 As far as the evidence for review goes, the most
22 important thing in this case is that a court shall reverse an
23 administrative decision if appellant's substantial rights have
24 been prejudiced because his findings are in violation of
10:32AM 25 constitutional or statutory provisions. It's cited in my
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 4
1 brief.
2 The reason for the stop in this case is because
3 my client made a U-turn from a left-turn-only lane. That's
4 the only thing that's in the police officer's report. There's
10:32AM 5 nothing in the transcript that elaborates on that reason --
6 that reason for the stop. And so because there's no facts
7 articulated in the record, there can -- the ALJ -- there's no
8 legal basis to find that there's reasonable suspicion or
9 probable cause for the stop.
10:33AM 10 THE COURT: I'm sorry? There was not testimony
11 at the hearing?
12 MR. CRAWSHAW: There was.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 MR. CRAWSHAW: But not on that point.
10:33AM 15 THE COURT: All right.
16 MR. CRAWSHAW: The only thing that's in the
17 police report, which is an exhibit that's attached to the
18 record, is that my client made a U-turn from a left-hand-turn
19 lane, which is not in itself a traffic violation. And so
10:33AM 20 because -- because that's not --
21 THE COURT: It can -- it may or it may not be,
22 right?
23 MR. CRAWSHAW: That's correct.
24 THE COURT: Okay.
10:33AM 25 MR. CRAWSHAW: But because there's no objective
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 5
1 facts in the record to support that finding, I think that
2 the -- the decision must be reversed.
3 THE COURT: All right.
4 MS. SORENSON: And I think you have a copy of
10:33AM 5 this, do you?
6 THE COURT: I do.
7 MS. SORENSON: Okay. And the -- really, the
8 standard of review is the most important thing here on appeal,
9 and I know you're very familiar with this. And we believe not
10:34AM 10 only does the record demonstrate some reasonable basis for the
11 ALJ's decision and more than a scintilla of evidence, but I
12 don't think that there's even an evidentiary ambiguity in this
13 case. He was -- the officer was subpoenaed by defense and did
14 appear at the hearing, but they elected not to ask him any
10:34AM 15 questions about the stop.
16 THE COURT: Well --
17 MS. SORENSON: Where the -- where the --
18 THE COURT: It might be good lawyering.
19 MS. SORENSON: Oh, oh, no. Yeah. No. I'm
10:34AM 20 not -- I'm just saying they didn't. And the evidence for --
21 and where the -- the evidence for the judge's decision is in
22 the officer's sworn report, which is just as valid as if he
23 testified at the hearing. It's in the paperwork. And, Judge,
24 it's on -- it's in the -- you have a copy of the --
10:35AM 25 THE COURT: You guys --
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 6
1 MS. SORENSON: -- record?
2 THE COURT: -- don't dispute that that's the
3 sole basis, is that --
4 MR. CRAWSHAW: No.
10:35AM 5 THE COURT: -- is a U-turn? No?
6 MR. CRAWSHAW: No.
7 MS. SORENSON: No, no.
8 THE COURT: You're not disputing that that's the
9 basis that the ALR judge made -- found reasonable suspicion
10:35AM 10 for the stop was a U-turn in a left-hand --
11 MS. SORENSON: That's correct, Judge. And so
12 the evidence for that -- what the judge based his -- and you
13 can see from his -- from his -- his decision exactly what he
14 says. And in the report -- the officer's report, it says that
10:35AM 15 he was monitoring traffic on Walzem. He observed the vehicle
16 traveling westbound in the left lane and then made a U-turn
17 through the, quote, left-only-turn lane on the eastbound side.
18 And when asked about why he did this, the defendant stated he
19 didn't know about the turn lane. So this was a left-only-turn
10:36AM 20 lane. Left only means left only, does not mean any other
21 kinds of turns, including a U-turn. And so -- and the judge
22 states in his decision that reasonable suspicion to stop or
23 detain defendant existed on that date. A Texas peace officer
24 observed defendant make a U-turn from a lane designated for
10:36AM 25 left turns only while operating a motor vehicle.
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 7
1 So there is actually specific, articulated facts
2 as to why he stopped him, because he made a U-turn through a
3 left-only-turn lane. So I think that is true.
4 As far as the -- there's more than a scintilla
10:36AM 5 of evidence because it's there in the record, in the peace
6 officer's sworn report, which is DPS 1 and it's in the first
7 tab.
8 Then, secondly, even if you -- oh, I'm sorry.
9 Whoops. And to discuss the -- the -- the city ordinance --
10:37AM 10 and I believe you have it in Mr. Crawshaw's very impressive
11 brief. And I mean that in sincerity. It was very -- you
12 know, it was very well done.
13 On the U-turn, the limitations, it says the
14 driver of any vehicle shall not turn such vehicle so as to
10:37AM 15 proceed in the opposite direction upon any street in a
16 business district, at any section controlled by a traffic
17 control signal unless signs are posted permitting a U-turn.
18 Okay. So this was a left only -- designated
19 left-only-turn lane. It didn't designate U-turn because it
10:37AM 20 was designated left turn only.
21 THE COURT: Isn't the -- isn't the distinction
22 if it is, in fact, in a business district?
23 MS. SORENSON: Or any intersection, it says --
24 upon any street or any intersection controlled by a traffic
10:38AM 25 control device, it says.
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 8
1 THE COURT: Within a business district?
2 MS. SORENSON: No, outside of that. Or at any
3 intersection -- or nor upon any other street unless such
4 moving can be made in safety without interfering with other
10:38AM 5 traffic. And this was -- business, I didn't even think that
6 was at issue.
7 THE COURT: All right. So -- hang on a second.
8 So --
9 MS. SORENSON: But -- I have another --
10:38AM 10 THE COURT: Go ahead.
11 MS. SORENSON: I'm sorry.
12 THE COURT: That's okay.
13 MS. SORENSON: No. You go ahead, Judge, and
14 then I'll go with my third thing.
10:38AM 15 THE COURT: So the issue is whether or not it
16 was legal or illegal to make the turn where the turn was made.
17 There could be instances where it is illegal. There could be
18 instances where it's not. I don't understand why,
19 Mr. Crawshaw, you're saying that can't support reasonable
10:38AM 20 suspicion in any capacity.
21 MR. CRAWSHAW: Because the law -- constitutional
22 law requires -- this is an old case, but Ford versus State
23 requires there be objective reasonable basis in the record.
24 THE COURT: That is -- how is that not an
10:39AM 25 objective reasonable basis --
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 9
1 MR. CRAWSHAW: Because it's not --
2 THE COURT: -- in the record?
3 MR. CRAWSHAW: Because it's not an
4 articulated -- it's not an articulated reason for the stop.
10:39AM 5 Yes, he --
6 THE COURT: It's articulated in the police
7 report which is acceptable evidence of the ALR hearing.
8 MR. CRAWSHAW: Yes, it is. That's exactly
9 right.
10:39AM 10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 MR. CRAWSHAW: But the difference is, Judge, is
12 that that alone is a conclusory statement which doesn't
13 articulate a traffic violation. And we have to have
14 objective, specific, reasonable, articulated facts by the
10:39AM 15 officer.
16 THE COURT: Could you read that statement for me
17 again in the police officer's report?
18 MS. SORENSON: Yes. I don't want to start too
19 far above, but he was monitoring traffic at the 5000 block of
10:39AM 20 Walzem, a public roadway. I observed a vehicle traveling
21 westbound in the left lane and then made a U-turn through
22 the -- and he puts it in quotes, the officer in his report --
23 left-only, quotes, turn lane on the eastbound side.
24 THE COURT: Keep reading, please.
10:40AM 25 MS. SORENSON: Oh, I'm sorry. I activated the
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 10
1 patrol's emergency red and blue lights to initiate a traffic
2 stop. The vehicle pulled over at the Roosevelt High School
3 parking area.
4 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
10:40AM 5 MS. SORENSON: I made contact with him.
6 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
7 MS. SORENSON: I'm sorry.
8 THE COURT: Mr. Crawshaw, you're saying that
9 there can be no inference that, I saw this and activated my
10:40AM 10 lights, that can't be an inference that the ALR judge can make
11 was the basis of the stop?
12 MR. CRAWSHAW: Yeah, but he didn't, Judge. The
13 findings of fact make no inference. The findings of fact
14 merely recite what's in the police report. And that's the
10:40AM 15 issue. The standard of review says are there -- is there a
16 basis in the record, number one. And then, number two, before
17 that, actually, in the section of the Government Code, it
18 says, is there -- if there's -- if it's in violation of a
19 constitution or statutory provision. My client has a
10:40AM 20 constitutional right against unreasonable seizure, not search.
21 We aren't dealing with a search. Unreasonable seizure. And
22 so because there's not objective, reasonable, articulated
23 facts in the record -- and that section of the Government Code
24 is in the right-hand side of my folder --
10:41AM 25 THE COURT: A court of review must affirm the
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 11
1 administrative findings in a contested case if there's more
2 than a scintilla of evidence to support them even if the
3 findings are against the preponderance of the evidence. The
4 inquiry is not whether the administrative law judge's decision
10:41AM 5 was correct, but only whether the record demonstrates some
6 reasonable basis for the AL judge's decision.
7 It's a very high burden, I think, for you to be
8 successful on an appeal based on the standard of review, the
9 substantial evidence analysis.
10:41AM 10 MR. CRAWSHAW: And I agree with that, Judge, but
11 I would -- I guess I can't emphasize enough that Section
12 2001.1744 of the Government Code says that this reviewing
13 court must reverse it if there -- if my client's
14 constitutional and substantial rights have been violated, and
10:42AM 15 I think that they have.
16 THE COURT: And they've been violated because?
17 MR. CRAWSHAW: Because there was no reasonable
18 basis for the seizure, for the initial detention. All he saw
19 my client do was make a traffic maneuver. That's the only
10:42AM 20 thing that's in the record, and so there's not a scintilla of
21 evidence in the record that says, yeah, there's an objective
22 basis for the stop.
23 THE COURT: He made an indication in the report
24 that he made a U-turn in a left-turn-only lane and he
10:42AM 25 initiated his traffic lights.
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 12
1 MR. CRAWSHAW: That's it though. That's a
2 conclusory statement that -- all he's citing is he saw
3 somebody drive and make a U-turn. He hasn't -- that's it.
4 THE COURT: And put on his lights; therefore, in
10:42AM 5 his opinion, meaning that the person violated a traffic law.
6 MR. CRAWSHAW: That's correct, in his opinion.
7 But we have the objective basis standard under the
8 constitution which the Government Code says that if there's no
9 objective basis, then his constitutional rights have been
10:43AM 10 violated and this decision -- the ALJ's decision should be
11 reversed.
12 THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Crawshaw, but I
13 disagree with you. I think there was an objective basis that
14 the ALR judge made his decision on with the police report that
10:43AM 15 was submitted. And on the standard of review, I'm not going
16 to substitute my judgement for his.
17 MR. CRAWSHAW: Thank you, Judge.
18 THE COURT: Thank you.
19 (Conclusion of proceedings.)
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR 13
1 STATE OF TEXAS )
2 COUNTY OF BEXAR )
3 I, Edna L. Casanova, County Court Reporter in and for
4 the County Court No. 2 of Bexar County, State of Texas, do
5 hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true
6 and correct transcription of all portions of evidence and
7 other proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the
8 parties to be included in this volume of the Reporter's
9 Record, in the above-styled and numbered cause, all of which
10 occurred in open court or in chambers and were reported to me.
11 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the
12 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any,
13 admitted by the respective parties.
14 I further certify that the total cost for the
15 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $ 58.50 and was
16 paid/will be paid by Attorney Adam Crawshaw .
17 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 14th day of
18 August , 2015.
20 /s/Edna L. Casanova Edna L. Casanova, Texas CSR 6447 21 Expiration Date: 12/31/2015 Official Court Reporter 22 County Court No. 2 Bexar County, Texas 23 San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210)335-2079 24
EDNA L. CASANOVA, CSR, RPR