Police had reasonable suspicion to pull over driver for texting while driving where officers had earlier seen driver parked by the side of the road sending text messages and he was driving while looking down and moving his arms. Appellant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and placed on probation. On appeal he challenged the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, claiming the observations of the officers did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion he was texting while driving. Held: Affirmed. The decision to stop appellant was reasonable. Officers had earlier driven slowly by appellant’s car, which was stopped by the side of the road, and had seen him sending text messages on his phone. Five minutes later, officers returned to the same location, just as appellant was pulling out into traffic. While driving, appellant was leaning and looking down several times, as though using his phone. His hands were moving as though he was texting. Officers had reason to believe appellant was texting while driving in violation of Vehicle Code section 23123, subdivision (a).

The trial court failed to orally impose penalties and surcharges on the criminal laboratory fee and drug program fee. The trial court imposed a $50 laboratory analysis fee and a $150 drug program fee. The Court of Appeal listed a number of penalties and a surcharge which are applicable to these fees, noting the trial court failed to orally impose them either directly or indirectly (i.e., by using the expression “plus penalty assessment”). The case was remanded for a determination of appellant’s ability to pay these fees pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.7, subdivision (b).