SPIVEY, TRAVIS LAYTON Appeal from 19th District Court of McLennan County (original per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-0720-22 THE STATE OF TEXAS v. TRAVIS LAYTON SPIVEY, Appellee ON APPELLEE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS MCLENNAN COUNTY Per curiam. OPINION Appellee was indicted for possessing four grams or more, but less than 200 grams, of methamphetamine based on evidence seized after a canine sniff of Appellee’s vehicle following a traffic stop. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(d). Appellee filed a motion to suppress arguing, in part, that the warrantless search and seizure of his property Spivey — 2 was without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and, alternatively, that officers unreasonably prolonged the initial detention. See Lerma v. State, 543 S.W.3d 184, 191-93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (a traffic stop may not be prolonged beyond the time necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop). The trial court granted Appellee’s motion to suppress. The State appealed. On appeal, the State argued that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the motion to suppress arguing the trial court failed to consider the totality of the circumstances when determining whether there was reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop. The court of appeals agreed and reversed the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress. State v. Spivey, No. 10-22000111-CR, 2022 WL 5239684, at *4 (Tex. App. – Waco Oct. 5, 2022, pet. granted) (not designated for publication). Appellee filed a petition for discretionary review arguing that the court of appeals erred in its opinion below. After considering the parties’ briefs and the record, we conclude that our decision to grant review was improvident. We therefore dismiss Appellee’s petition for discretionary review as improvidently granted. Delivered: April 24, 2024 Do not publish

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.