By on February 24, 2011

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.

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

[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

10 Comments on “Federal Appeals Court Overturns Wrong-Way Traffic Stop...”


  • avatar
    jimbowski

    Was the city under any kind of emergency declaration at the time?  Such as martial law, or ‘please stay off the roads’?  How did the traffic flow while the officer was busy with this guy?

  • avatar
    aspade

    The other reason besides revenue for ticky tacky traffic enforcement, pretense for fishing expeditions.
     
    I wish a judge would argue that a petty traffic infraction didn’t necessitate voiding the 4th Amendment.
     

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    “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)

    • 0 avatar
      ott

      Not true. That was hilarious!

    • 0 avatar
      LeBaron

      Well, I don’t actually need the house keys as I can use the .45 to open the lock.

    • 0 avatar

      I am from Texas and it is perfectly lawful to transport an unloaded gun.  The definition of loaded is having a round in the chamber, as was this case.  You can have a full magazine in the handle, but if you have not pulled back the slide, then you are not transporting a loaded gun.
      If I were fleeing from a flood I’d worry about looters and bring my most transportable and valuable property with me.  What may have happened in this case is that he took his gun from where he stores it but forgot to remove the mag and eject the round from the chamber.
      stepheda

    • 0 avatar
      Lumbergh21

      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.

  • avatar
    SuperACG

    How do these convicted felons retain good counsel???

    It seems that every overturned case posted on here was started by former felons!!!

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Carmaker1: As usual it’s very obvious the one who moderates here, is slacking and my response from 2 days ago...
  • Tstag: Can someone just make a beautiful saloon again? Here’s hoping Jaguars new design chief gets the message
  • slap: “People will buy wagons if you offer them the right ones at the right price.” “Don’t make the...
  • nrd515: I drove an F150 with the 3.3, and it was tolerable for me. If the Ecoboost engines were trustwotthy, and they...
  • nrd515: Hell, I wouldn’t even want to deal with turbo issues under the warranty, as a friend of mine has done...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber