Alan Jannotti v. State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of McLennan County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 2001 » Alan Jannotti v. State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of McLennan County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-00-00299-CR

Case Date: 10/17/2001

Plaintiff: Alan Jannotti

Defendant: State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of McLennan County

Preview:Alan Jannotti v. State of Texas--Appeal from County
Court at Law No 1 of McLennan County
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-00-299-CR
ALAN JANNOTTI,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 1
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court # 992929
O P I N I O N
Alan Jannotti was charged with and convicted of the misdemeanor offense of Interference with Public Duties. See Tex.
Penal Code Ann. 38.15(a) (Vernon Supp. 2001). After a jury trial, the court sentenced Jannotti to 90 days in jail with
no fine. He appeals the trial court s denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.
Background
Jannotti is a truck driver. He was stopped for speeding by Department of Public Safety Trooper William Carlile on
Interstate 35 in McLennan County, Texas. Before he was handed his ticket, Carlile asked him for his logbook. Jannotti
refused and locked himself in the cab of his truck. After repeated attempts to have Jannotti exit his truck, Carlile broke
out the driver s side window and unlocked the door. Jannotti kicked at Carlile. A Robinson police officer broke out the
passenger side window. Jannotti moved towards the driver s door, and Carlile was able to pull him from the truck.
Motion to Suppress
In his sole issue on appeal, Jannotti contends the trial court erred in failing to exclude evidence obtained as a result of
an illegal search and seizure. //
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/4512.html[8/20/2013 7:15:18 PM]

A trial court's denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103, 106
(Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The trial court's findings of fact are given "almost total deference," and in the absence of
explicit findings, the appellate court assumes the trial court made implicit findings which were supported in the record.
Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89- 90 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1997). The application of relevant law, including search and seizure law, is reviewed de novo. Id.; Hailey
v. State, 50 S.W.3d 636, 639 (Tex. App. Waco 2001, no pet. h.).
In his motion to suppress, Jannotti asserts that Trooper Carlile had no authority to ask for his logbook; thus, the
detention was illegal. He contends that federal law provides only special agents of the Federal Highway Administration
with the authority to inspect logbooks.
Specifically, federal law provides:
Every special agent of the FHWA (as defined in appendix B to this subchapter) is authorized to enter upon and
perform inspections of motor carrier s vehicles in operation.
49 C.F.R. 396.9(a) (2001). The director of the Texas Department of Public Safety incorporated certain parts, including
section 396, of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations into
the Texas Administrative Code. 37 Tex. Admin. Code 3.62(a) (2001). Included in the incorporation are the
amendments and interpretations of those parts. Id.
There is no interpretation of section 396.9(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations. We have neither been cited to, nor
have we found, anything which would require that we interpret the words every special agent to mean only special
agents. // We decline to adopt such an interpretation, especially in light of Section 3.26 of the Texas Administrative
Code. That provision states:
Traffic law enforcement officers of the department of public safety will conduct inspections of the condition of the
drivers and equipment of their vehicles to assure that safety and licensing requirements, as outlined in the statutes, are
being complied with.
37 Tex. Admin. Code 3.26 (2001) (emphasis added).
Trooper Carlile requested Jannotti s logbook because he suspected Jannotti had taken something, either legal or illegal,
to keep himself awake. Carlile acknowledged he could not write a ticket for any logbook violations, but also
acknowledged that he had a duty to protect Jannotti and others on the road. By asking for the logbook, Carlile
attempted to ascertain Jannotti s condition to continue driving.
Even though Trooper Carlile could not issue a citation for violations of the requirements related to maintaining the log
book or based on the information contained in the log book, there was nothing improper about requesting to see the log
book. Because the request to view the log book was not an illegal request, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
allowing the introduction of testimony about Jannotti s actions which followed the request.
Jannotti s additional arguments do not comport with the argument raised in the motion to suppress. Jannotti has failed
to preserve the additional arguments for our review. See Jenkins v. State, 912 S.W.2d 793, 814-815 (Tex. Crim. App.
1993); In re C.Q.T.M., 25 S.W.3d 730, 738 (Tex. App. Waco 2000, pet. denied).
Jannotti s sole issue is overruled.
Conclusion
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
TOM GRAY
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/4512.html[8/20/2013 7:15:18 PM]

Justice
Before Chief Justice Davis,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Gray
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed October 17, 2001
Do not publish
[CR25]
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/4512.html[8/20/2013 7:15:18 PM]

Download 4512.pdf