CAUSE NO. 2020CRO752 THE STATE OF TEXAS 5 TY COURT VS. § AT LAW CLARENCE WALTER CRAWFORD, JR § COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS. MOTION To DISMISS COMES NOW the State of Texas, by and through the undersigned Criminal District Attorney, and requests the Court to dismiss the above-captioned cause in which the defendant is charged with INTERFER W/PUBLIC DUTIES, which occurred on 15th day of January, 2020, for the following reason On January 15, 2020, Kaleb Meyer, an officer with the New Braunfels Police Department, was following behind a white passenger car traveling north on IH-35. That vehicle was being operated by Clarence Walter Crawford, Jr Officer Meyer's in-car video begins right before the sign indicating that it is % mile to exit 186 (Walnut Avenue). At that time, Officer Meyer was following Crawford in the second lane from the right at speeds varying from 50 to 70 mph. From the video, the white car's license plate appears to be dirty and difficult or impossible to read. The video shows that Officer Meyer activated his lights right before the sign indicating that it was % mile to exit 187 (Seguin Avenue), presumably to make a traffic stop for the obscured license plate. Based on Texas Transportation Code §504.945(a)(7), this would be a valid basis to conduct a traffic stop. See Banegas v. State, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 10175 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2019). The video shows that it was beginning to get dark and Officer Meyer's emergency lights can clearly be seen reflecting off of signs ahead of the white passenger car. Because it was only % mile to the Seguin Avenue exit when Meyer's lights were activated, it could be argued that it would have been difficult for the Defendant to have exited there. Officer Meyer then activated his siren. However, the Defendant made no attempt to move to the right lane. Additionally, there was no reason why the Defendant couldn’t have taken the next exit, exit 188 (Guadalupe River Turnaround). After passing exit 188, the Defendant did move to the right lane and he exited at exit 189 (Texas 46, Loop 337). After merging onto the IH 35 frontage road, the Defendant passed at least 3 driveways to the right where he could have safely pulled off of the roadway and into a parking lot. However, he continued to the driveway for RBFCU. After turning into that driveway, he made another right into the parking lot for the Texas MedClinic.‘The Defendant then came to a stop at an angle across several parking spots. At this point, the offense of eluding under Texas Transportation Code §545.421 would have been complete and anything that occurs after this point would be irrelevant to the Defendant's guilt or innocence as to this offense. Furthermore, the facts set out above would be sufficient to sustain a conviction for eluding. See Austin v. State, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 4675 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017). Officer Meyer was wearing a body camera that captured the events after the Defendant's car came to a stop. That camera gives a superior view of the events from that point. After the vehicle came to a stop, it appears that Officer Meyer was conducting a felony stop as he approached the Defendant's vehicle with his weapon (handgun) drawn. Note, the actions he took are not in line with the New Braunfels Police Department's SOPs for how a felony stop is to be conducted. This is also questionable as no felony had been committed at that point. Once Officer Meyer was close enough to see into the Defendant's car on the body camera, it is clear that the Defendant was the sole occupant. He complied with Officer Meyer's orders and placed his left hand on the steering wheel in plain view. Mr. Crawford was holding his cell phone in his right hand, which was also plainly visible. Thus, it should have been fairly obvious that he did not have a weapon in either hand. The Defendant began loudly yelling, “Please don’t shoot me officer. Please don’t shoot me. I'm Black.” The Defendant's actions were overly dramatic. However, Officer Meyer did not attempt to deescalate the situation. Instead, he opened the car door and grabbed the Defendant by his arm, demanding that he get out of the car. The Defendant responded by telling Meyer that he had a seat belt on. Meyer then demanded that he take it off and the Defendant responded by telling him that he ordered him to place his hands on the wheel. Meyer then threatened to cut the Defendant's seat belt off. Eventually, the Defendant took his seat belt off and exited his vehicle. Meyer then ordered him to get on the ground. The Defendant refused, asking him, “For what?” The Defendant did take a knee. Unsatisfied, Meyer continued ordering the Defendant “On your face.” The Defendant eventually went to his hands and knees but refused to completely go down on the ground. In response, Officer Meyer used his taser to “dry stun” the Defendant on his leg at least twice. The Defendant was then handcuffed. At this point, the relevant events are complete. These facts, as set above, could arguably support a conviction for interference with public duties. There are several Texas cases in which it has been held that defendants interfered with public duties because they repeatedly ignored instructions from police officers. See, e.g., Barnes v. State, 206 S.W.3d 601, 605-06 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (defendant's failure to comply with officer's instructions provided legally sufficient evidence to support conviction for interference with public duties); Boyd v. State, 217S.W.3d_ 37, 42-43 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006, pet. ref’d) (the jury could infer from the defendant's act in pulling away from the officer that the defendant intentionally and knowingly impeded and interfered with the officer’s investigation); Berrett v. State, 152 S.W.3d 600, 604- 05 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd) (holding the evidence sufficient to support a conviction for interference with public duties where the defendant voluntarily kept filming and moving his arm out of the officer's reach in an effort to prevent the officer from placing him in handcuffs). However, although the facts above could legally support convictions for both eluding and interference with public duties, Officer Meyer's behavior in the instant case was less than professional. He failed to act to deescalate the situation and used force that did not appear to be necessary when he deployed his taser. Kaleb Meyer is no longer employed by the New Braunfels Police Department. Thus, Officer Meyer's availability and willingness to cooperate as a witness in the prosecution of these cases is questionable, Additionally, New Braunfels Police Chief Tom Wibert has sent an email to the District Attorney's Office recommending that all charges against Mr. Crawford be dismissed in the interest of justice. Although there is legally sufficient evidence to pursue these charges, considering the totality of the circumstances, Chief Wibert’s recommendation is not unreasonable, Therefore, for these reasons, the State moves to dismiss Cause Numbers 2020CRO735 and 2020CRO752. Respectfully submitted, ORDER FOR DISMISSAL on the day of September 29, 2020, 2020, ivisPIRDERED that apove is hereby dismissed. LL ( x ———_- Presiding Judge Comal County Court at Law