Federal Appeals Court Overturns Wrong-Way Traffic Stop

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper
federal appeals court overturns wrong way traffic stop

A police officer in Houston, Texas thought he had a slam dunk case against a motorist he stopped for driving on the wrong side of the road on September 15, 2008. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a February 10 decision overturned the stop on the grounds that driving on the wrong side of the road is not always against the law.

Just two days before the incident, Hurricane Ike made landfall in Galveston as a category 2 storm. Houston had suffered widespread power outages, looting and gas shortages. On September 15, lines that formed around a gas station at the intersection of Almeda-Genoa Road and Chiswick Road. This caused a major traffic backup that blocked the only road leading out of a subdivision. Motorist Corey A. Raney wanted out, so he drove slowly around the stopped cars by pulling into the opposite lane. Officer Rohan Walker, who was directing traffic in the area, ordered Raney to pull over, and Raney complied immediately. Raney was charged with driving in the wrong lane of traffic, failing to obey a police officer’s directions and reckless driving.

Raney’s appeal turned on the question of whether driving in the wrong lane of traffic is always a violation of the Texas Transportation Code. The law states that a driver shall drive on the right side of the road unless “the operator is passing another vehicle; …an obstruction necessitates moving the vehicle left of the center of the roadway and the operator yields right-of-way to a vehicle… or the operator is on a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.”

The appellate court majority found that since the right lane of the two-lane road was blocked, it constituted an obstruction allowing Raney’s maneuver. The court did not believe, based on the evidence, that prosecutors could prove that Raney should have noticed that Officer Walker was directing traffic. It also disagreed that Raney’s actions were reckless.

“Officer Walker testified that he believed Raney was driving recklessly when he pulled into the northbound lane where Officer Walker was standing simply because Officer Walker ‘would have been hit’ if he had not moved,” the majority decision stated. “This argument is specious. Recklessness clearly requires a showing of willful and wanton disregard for the persons or property of others… Officer Walker testified that Raney was driving approximately ten to fifteen miles per hour in a lane with no oncoming traffic.”

Because there was no traffic violation committed, the majority held that the traffic stop was invalid. It overturned the lower court’s decision to accept evidence that Raney, a convicted felon, had been carrying a .45 caliber Sig Sauer pistol. Prosecutors had relied heavily on this fact to convict Raney on far more serious charges.

“The gun was loaded, a round in the chamber, ready to be fired — bang, bang, bang,” the prosecutor told the jury during closing arguments at trial.

The prosecutor then asked rhetorically why any of the officers would ever risk their careers by lying in court to obtain a conviction. The appellate court found these statements highly objectionable.

“We feel it prudent to address this issue because the government has been cautioned repeatedly by this court against making such arguments, yet we continue to face them on appeal,” the majority wrote. “It is troubling to this court that the government made these types of improper remarks in the present matter because the primary inculpatory evidence was the testimony of the law enforcement witnesses whose credibility was bolstered by the prosecution… Despite our precedent clearly condemning such remarks, the government continues to disregard our admonishments.”

Judge Fortunato Benavides dissented, arguing that “an ordinary traffic jam” does not necessitate driving on the wrong side of the road. A copy of the decision is available in an 80k PDF file at the source link below.

US v. Raney (US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2/24/2011)

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

Join the conversation
8 of 10 comments
  • Psarhjinian Psarhjinian on Feb 24, 2011
    “The gun was loaded, a round in the chamber, ready to be fired — bang, bang, bang,” the prosecutor told the jury during closing arguments at trial. Yeah, but this is Texas. Isn't carrying a loaded firearm in Texas akin to carrying your wallet and house keys anywhere else? (note to people with no sense of humour: I'm kidding. You really don't want me to be serious on this topic because I'm no fun at all)
    • See 3 previous
    • Lumbergh21 Lumbergh21 on Feb 24, 2011

      I'm pretty sure that even in Texas (or Alaska for that matter) it is illegal for a convicted felon to own let alone carry a gun loaded or otherwise. It overturned the lower court’s decision to accept evidence that Raney, a convicted felon, had been carrying a .45 caliber Sig Sauer pistol.

  • SuperACG SuperACG on Feb 24, 2011

    How do these convicted felons retain good counsel??? It seems that every overturned case posted on here was started by former felons!!!

    • See 1 previous
    • SuperACG SuperACG on Feb 24, 2011

      Yes, but how do they afford counsel? If they've been caught, then they're not very smart, so they can't have much disposable income...legal or illegal.

  • Dusterdude @El scotto , I'm aware of the history, I have been in the "working world" for close to 40 years with many of them being in automotive. We have to look at situation in the "big picture". Did UAW make concessions in past ? - yes. Do they deserve an increase now ? -yes . Is their pay increase reasonable given their current compensation package ? Not at all ! By the way - are the automotive CEO's overpaid - definitely! (That is the case in many industries, and a separate topic). As the auto industry slowly but surely moves to EV's , the "big 3" will need to be producing top quality competitive vehicles or they will not survive.
  • Art_Vandelay “We skipped it because we didn’t think anyone would want to steal these things”-Hyundai
  • El scotto Huge lumbering SUV? Check. Unknown name soon to be made popular by Tiktok ilk? Check. Scads of these showing up in school drop-off lines? Check. The only real over/under is if these will have as much cachet as Land Rovers themselves? A bespoken item had to be new at one time. Bonus "accepted by the right kind of people" points if EBFlex or Tassos disapproves.
  • El scotto No, "brothers and sisters" are the core strength of the union. So you'll take less money and less benefits because "my company really needs helped out"? The UAW already did that with two-tier employees and concessions on their last contract.The Big 3 have never, ever locked out the UAW. The Big 3 have agreed to every collective bargaining agreement since WWII. Neither side will change.
  • El scotto Never mind that that F-1 is a bigger circus than EBFlex and Tassos shopping together for their new BDSM outfits and personal lubricants. Also, the F1 rumor mill churns more than EBFlex's mind choosing a new Sharpie to make his next "Free Candy" sign for his white Ram work van. GM will spend a year or two learning how things work in F1. By the third or fourth year GM will have a competitive "F-1 LS" engine. After they win a race or two Ferrari will protest to highest F-1 authorities. Something not mentioned: Will GM get tens of millions of dollars from F-1? Ferrari gets 30 million a year as a participation trophy.