In order to stop a motor vehicle, an officer must have reasonable
articulable suspicion that a public offense is occurring or has occurred.
There are many legitimate reasons for such a stop which include, but are
not limited to suspicious activity, traffic violations, and equipment
violations. The objective reasoning for the stop is the only relevant issue
for review. The subjective mind set of the office is irrelevant. Pursuant to
Whren vs. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996), the reasonableness of
a traffic stop does not depend upon the subjective intentions of an officer.
In other words, the days of arguing whether a traffic stop was a pretext for
other, unstated, reasons are history. See also State v. Lopez
n justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to
point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with
rational inferences from those facts, reasonable warrant intrusion.
6.3.1 - Traffic and equipment violations:
Observation of a traffic law violation is perhaps the most defensible reason
for stopping a vehicle. So long as the officer can articulate the observation
of the violation, a court should hold the stop to be lawful.
6.3.2. - Suspicious Driving:
In addition to patently obvious traffic law violations, officers may obtain
reasonable suspicion by observing other suspicious driving activities that
do not, by themselves, constitute and offense. The National Highway
Safety Administration identifies a number of clues which may be used in
order to form reasonable suspicion for a stop. These include:
Clues related to problems in maintaining proper lane position:
• Weaving within a lane;
• Weaving across lane lines;
• Straddling a lane line;
• Drifting;
• Swerving;
• Almost striking a vehicle or other object; and
• Turning with a wide radius, or drifting during a curve.
