How can a simple, routine, and trivia traffic stop end in a woman’s tragic death?  That’s the question many African Americans are asking, and quite frankly, are tired of asking.  An inexperienced law enforcement officer, Texas State Trooper Brian Encinia, stopped Sandra Bland for an illegal lane change.  This offense is a Class-C Misdemeanor that carries only a fine.  Yet, it led to Ms. Bland’s needless death.  This article does not address the cause and manner of her death.  Instead, it goes thru a step-by-step legal analysis to show why the arrest of Ms. Bland was unlawful.

The Stop

Reasonable suspicion.  An officer needs only reasonable suspicion to stop a motorist.  Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).  Reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch, but it is not probable cause.  To determine whether reasonable suspicion exists courts usually ask if an officer had a specific, objective basis for suspecting the defendant engaged in (or soon to be engaged in) criminal activity.  Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997).  In other words, reasonable suspicion likely exists if an officer has articulable facts that suggest the defendant committed or was committing a crime.

Illegal Lane Change

In the instant case, the surveillance tape recorded Officer Encinia informing Ms. Bland that he had observed her make an illegal lane change.  To understand what constitutes an illegal lane change in Texas, one must look to the Texas Transportation Code §§ 545.104(a)(b).  It requires that a motorist use his hand or signal lamp to indicate he is changing lanes.  And he must make the indication at least 100 feet prior to the lane change.  According to Officer Encinia, Ms. Bland failed to signal the lane change as required by the Texas Transportation Code §§ 545.104(a)(b).  Hence, he had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain Ms. Bland initially.

Initial Detention

What is a detention?  Detention occurs when a person yields to a police officer’s show of authority under a reasonable belief that he is not free to leave.  Johnson v. State, 414 S.W.3d 184, 193 (Tex.Crim.App.,2013).  In other words, a person is detained when he reasonably believes he is not free to leave the officer’s presence, such as when the officer handcuffs him or instructs him to remain in a specific place.  Under this standard, Ms. Bland was detained once Officer Encinia informed her that she made an illegal lane change and requested her driver license, insurance proof and registration.  Surely, Ms. Bland knew, at that point, she was not free to leave because the officer had not completed the stop nor returned her driver license, insurance proof and registration card.

Initial Arrest

In addition to reasonable suspicion, Officer Encinia had probable cause to arrest Ms. Bland since he observed the illegal lane change.  Probable cause is defined as facts and circumstances that suggest the suspect has probably committed a crime.  Under Texas law, if an officer observes a traffic violation in his plain view, he may arrest the violator because he has the requisite probable cause. Open container and speeding violations are the only exceptions.  Texas Transportation Code §§ 543.001 and 543.003.  Despite having probable cause to arrest Ms. Bland, Officer Encinia wrote her a warning ticket instead.  That should have ended the matter.  Tragically, for Ms. Bland, it did not.  The unlawful and inexperienced actions of Officer Encinia caused the matter to escalate, resulting in Ms. Bland’s continued unlawful detention.

Continued Unlawful Detention

The length of the detention. The next issue is whether Officer Encinia detained Ms. Bland beyond a reasonable amount of time?  A traffic-stop should take no longer than the time necessary to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop.  Rodriguez v. U.S., 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1614 (U.S.,2015).  Additionally, if the officer chooses to issue a warning ticket, the detention can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to issue the warning ticket. Illinois v. Caballes, 125 S.Ct. 834, 837, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (U.S.,2005).  Texas courts have also said that law enforcement officers must conclude traffic stops once the purpose of the stops has been satisfied.  Vasquez v. State, 324 S.W.3d 912, 919 (Tex.App. Houston [14 Dist.], 2010).  Further detention may not be used as a “fishing expedition for unrelated criminal activity.”  Id.

This language gives officers enough time and discretion to detain and question the motorist about the purpose of the traffic stop while doing a computer check for warrants.  Id.  Once the computer check is completed and the officer knows the driver has a valid license with no outstanding warrants, and the car is not stolen, the traffic stop investigation is finished. Id.  It is at this time that the detention must end, and the driver must be permitted to leave unless the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe another offense has been or is being committed. Id.

Pursuant to the above law, the amount of time Officer Encinia detained Ms. Bland was unreasonable.  He should have released her immediately after writing the warning ticket. He knew Ms. Bland had a valid driver license and no outstanding warrants from the computer check he presumably conducted, and he knew her car was not stolen.  Hence, the law required that he conclude the stop immediately by issuing Ms. Bland the warning ticket and releasing her without further enquiry.

Officer Encinia, however, did not immediately issue the warning ticket and release Ms. Bland.  He continued to detain her inexplicably and unlawfully by asking her additional questions that were unrelated to the illegal lane change.  For example, he asked her whether she was irritated.  Calmly, she informed him that she was indeed irritated and why.  Then he asked her to extinguish her cigarette.  Politely, she said it was not illegal for her to smoke in her car.  Although she was calm, polite and correct, her refusal to extinguish her cigarette visibly angered Officer Encinia.  He angrily ordered her out of the car, which, unfortunately, escalated the matter even more.

Order To Exit The Car

Is it lawful for law enforcement officers to order motorists out of their cars?  Yes, the United States Supreme Court and Texas law give law enforcement officers discretion to ask motorists to exit their cars during a traffic stop if an officer reasonably fears for his safety and desires to pat down the motorist for weapons pursuant to his department’s procedure.  Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 (1977) and O’Hara v. State, 27 S.W.3d 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

However, Ms. Bland did nothing to cause any reasonable fears in Officer Encinia.  She calmly confirmed her irritation with the stop after Officer Encinia asked her whether she was irritated.  Moreover, she politely refused to extinguish her cigarette when he asked her to extinguish it.  Her responses did not suggest that she was armed and dangerous because they were not belligerent, disrespectful or aggressive.

Even more important, by the time Officer Encinia ordered Ms. Bland to exit the car, the purpose of the traffic stop had been completed.  Further detention and ordering her to exit the car were, therefore, unlawful since Ms. Bland did nothing to give Officer Encinia any additional reasonable suspicion or probable cause beyond the illegal lane change. For these reasons, Officer Encinia should have released her immediately without further enquiry or ordering her to exit the car.  Instead, he arrested her.

Was The Arrest Lawful

Typically, officers need either a warrant or probable cause to make an arrest.  Above we said, probable cause is defined as facts and circumstances that suggest the suspect has probably committed a crime.  Again, under the facts of this case, there was no probable cause for Officer Encinia to arrest Ms. Bland subsequent to him writing the warning ticket.  Admittedly, we acknowledged above that he had probable cause to arrest her for the illegal lane change early in the detention, but he chose to write her a warning ticket instead.  At that point, the traffic stop was concluded, and he needed a warrant or additional probable cause to arrest Ms. Bland.  Neither existed since the only actions the surveillance tape records Ms. Bland taking were calmly expressing irritation about her traffic stop in response to the officer’s question and politely refusing to extinguish her cigarette.  These actions were NOT crimes, and it cannot be repeated enough that they did NOT create any additional reasonable suspicion or probable cause under Texas law for further detention or an arrest.

Conclusion

I offer no opinion about the cause and manner of Sandra Bland’s death.  Neither do I blame Officer Encinia or Ms. Bland for her death.  My primary intent is to produce a life-saving document that reduces the chances of minor traffic stops resulting in more needless deaths.  In this vein, I will make the following observations about the attitude and conduct of Ms. Bland and Officer Encinia.

Prior to Officer Encinia ordering Ms. Bland to exit her car, she was admittedly irritable but her conduct was lawful.  After the order, her conduct became unwise and arguably unlawful.

Officer Encinia, on the other hand, escalated the matter by failing to display professionalism, courtesy, and restraint in response to Ms. Bland’s irritation.  Additionally, he escalated the matter by detaining Ms. Bland beyond a reason amount of time and unlawfully arresting her.