United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 16, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40797
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DERRICK FLEMING,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:02-CR-162-2
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Derrick Fleming challenges the district court’s ruling on his
motion to suppress evidence in his appeal of his conditional
guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute
five or more grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1).
Fleming argues that law enforcement officials’ initial stop of
the vehicle in which he was a passenger violated the Fourth
Amendment. He also argues that the duration of his detention
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
violated the Fourth Amendment.
Suppression hearing testimony indicates that the police
officers stopped the vehicle in which Fleming was a passenger
because the taillights were continuously lit. The officer
testified that it appeared that the vehicle was braking when it was
not. Specifically, the police officer testified that he stopped
the vehicle pursuant to Texas Transp. Code § 547.323 because the
vehicle had defective taillights, which were a traffic hazard. The
district court correctly determined that a taillight that is
constantly on and that cannot signal when a vehicle is braking does
not comply with the Texas Transportation Code. See Texas Transp.
Code §§ 545.105, 545.106, 547.323 (Vernon 2003). Because the
police officers had probable cause to believe that a traffic
violation was occurring when they observed the vehicle’s defective
taillights, the decision to stop the vehicle was reasonable and did
not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Whren v. United States, 517
U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996). The appellant’s reliance on United States
v. Lopez-Valdez, 178 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 1999), is misplaced. In
Lopez-Valdez, the observed defect in the taillight upon which the
traffic stop was based was not a violation of the Texas
Transportation Code and did not provide a basis for the officer’s
belief that a traffic violation had occurred. Id. at 289.
Suppression hearing testimony also indicates that after the
vehicle was stopped, the officers requested a computer check after
ensuring their own safety. Questioning both before the computer
2
check and while the computer check was pending provided reasonable
suspicion based on articulable facts that a search of the vehicle
was warranted. Thus, the detention did not violate the Fourth
Amendment. See United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 435 (1993);
United States v. Gonzalez, 328 F.3d 755, 758 (5th Cir. 2003).
The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
G:\opin-sc\03-40797.opn.wpd 3