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. //

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

Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Gray

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed October 17, 2001

Do not publish

[CR25]