Hernandez, Israel

A homeowner in a rural area called 911 to report a “suspicious” four-door Chevrolet Silverado truck that was driving at a slow rate, heading west away from his residence. An officer was dispatched. When the officer arrived “a good 30 minutes” later, there was only one vehicle in the area. It was a truck (although not a Chevrolet Silverado), and it was close to the 911 caller’s mailbox. There had also been a lot of human smuggling incidents in the area. The officer attempted to pull the vehicle over. Hernandez, who was driving, did not stop for about four minutes. When he eventually did stop, he was arrested for evading. He argued at trial that the State failed to prove that the officer’s attempt to detain him was lawful—an element of evading. He was convicted.

Hernandez re-urged the point on appeal, contending that there was no reason to believe he was the subject of the 911 call and that, even if he was, driving slowly was not illegal. Citing Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), the court of appeals noted that the officer was not required to identify a particular crime that had occurred and could have relied on the 911 caller’s use of the term “suspicious” to infer that criminal activity may be afoot. It also noted that flight from a show of authority (which Hernandez did when he admitted he saw the emergency lights but didn’t stop and later attempted to flee on foot) could be a factor in establishing reasonable suspicion.

Hernandez challenges the court of appeals’ conclusion and disputes some of the facts. The court of appeals said Hernandez’s vehicle was discovered close to the 911 caller’s mailbox and turned onto a dirt road after the officer arrived. Hernandez contends he was already on the dirt road when the officer arrived and asserts that all that can be said of his proximity was that there was a dirt road near the residence and Hernandez’s truck was on the dirt road.