United States v. Finch — Fifth Circuit upheld vehicle stop based on an objectively reasonable reading of Texas turn-signal law

Case
United States of America v. Thomas Jorge Finch
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Judge
King; Higginson; Douglas
Date Decided
September 10, 2026
Docket No.
25-50568
Topics
Fourth Amendment, Traffic Stops, Suppression, Mistake of Law
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Thomas Jorge Finch entered a conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to transport illegal aliens. He preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence derived from a traffic stop.

An officer stopped Finch’s vehicle after concluding that Finch had failed to use a turn signal. Finch argued that the stop was unlawful because the officer misinterpreted Texas Transportation Code § 545.104(a), which requires drivers to signal an intention to change lanes.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Finch’s suppression motion. A traffic stop is justified at its inception when an officer has objectively reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation occurred or is about to occur.

The court concluded that Texas courts had not rejected the officer’s interpretation of the turn-signal statute. Thus, even if the officer misunderstood the statute, that mistake of law was objectively reasonable and could support the stop under Heien v. North Carolina.

Key Takeaways

  • An objectively reasonable mistake of law may provide the reasonable suspicion needed for a traffic stop.
  • Texas law requires a driver to signal an intention to change lanes.
  • Because Texas courts had not rejected the officer’s interpretation of the statute, suppression was unwarranted.

Why It Matters

The decision applies the Supreme Court’s reasonable-mistake-of-law doctrine to a stop based on Texas turn-signal requirements. A defendant cannot obtain suppression merely by showing that an officer’s interpretation may have been mistaken; the relevant question is whether that interpretation was objectively reasonable.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top