Opinion
No. 04-01-00659-CR
Delivered and Filed: February 26, 2003 DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2001-CR-1624, Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding. AFFIRMED
Sitting: Catherine STONE, Justice, Paul W. GREEN, Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Arnulfo Quintanilla appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance. In two points of error, Quintanilla argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence because the arresting officer had neither reasonable suspicion to stop him nor probable cause to arrest him. Because the issues in this appeal involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in this memorandum opinion under Tex.R.App.P. 47.4. The record evidence supports a finding that the police officer witnessed Quintanilla commit a traffic violation when he failed to signal his lane change until he was already in the other lane. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.104(a) (Vernon 1999) (traffic violation occurs when a driver does not use a turn signal to indicate the driver's intention to change lanes). Texas statutes provide authority for a police officer to arrest a driver for most observed traffic offenses; therefore, traffic violations committed in an officer's presence provide both reasonable suspicion to stop the driver and probable cause for arrest. McVickers v. State, 874 S.W.2d 662, 64 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993); Hargrove v. State, 40 S.W.3d 556, 559 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (traffic violation, i.e., unsignalled lane change, committed in officer's presence provides probable cause and justifies detention); Lagunas v. State, No. 04-01-00415-CR, 2002 Tex. App. WL 563760, at *3 (San Antonio Apr. 17, 2002, no pet. h.) (not designated for publication). The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 543.001 (Vernon 1999); Tex.Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 14.01(b) (Vernon 1977).