When Can A Police Officer Stop Me?

Most people feel a sudden rush of emotions when they notice a police patrol vehicle behind them. The gut feeling leaves them feeling like the patrol officer can stop them at any given moment for any reason. However, what legal limitations, or better phrased, what constitutional protections, are in place to oversee law enforcement traffic stop procedures? Unfortunately, very little practical oversight exists, as discussed below, leaving unaware average people exposed to unwanted police contact.

The United States Supreme Court has stated that an officer can stop a driver when there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver has committed a traffic violation. California has hundreds of laws within its Vehicle Code that regulates roadway activity. If an officer can establish a reasonable suspicion that a driver violated any of these, generally, they can conduct a traffic stop.

For example, in People v. Colbert, a police officer was driving in his patrol vehicle when he observed an older, white Oldsmobile vehicle with a flat air freshener shaped like a tree. The officer believed that the air freshener obstructed the view of the driver of the front windshield in violation of Vehicle Code section 26708, subsection (a)(2), which states: “A person shall not drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied in or upon the vehicle that obstructs or reduces the driver’s clear view through the windshield or side windows.” The officer pulled over the driver, an uncle driving with his nephew. After being provided with the uncle’s driver’s license, the officer was informed that the uncle was on active parole. The officer then asked the uncle and nephew to exit the vehicle to conduct a search of the vehicle pursuant to the uncle’s parole terms. Inside the vehicle, the officer found methadone pills and a credit card reported lost two days prior. The officer also believed that the uncle was under the influence. The uncle was subsequently arrested and charged with possession of methadone, appropriation of lost property, and being under the influence of a controlled substance. The uncle had a prior criminal history which also increased his exposure to a longer prison sentence.

After filing a motion to suppress, the Judge presiding over the preliminary hearing credited the officer’s testimony and found that it was reasonable for the officer to believe that the air freshener obstructed the uncle’s view. Likewise, the Court of Appeal, credited the officer and found that the Judge’s decision was not a mistake.

Similarly, in People v. Gomez, police officers stopped a vehicle for a seatbelt violation, attempting to find any traffic violation to stop a vehicle they suspected was involved in trafficking narcotics. The Court indicated that “[s]topping defendant’s vehicle for a seatbelt violation, even if done as a pretext for the narcotics investigation, was entirely legal.”

Some other examples allowing an officer to conduct a traffic stop include:
• Speeding.
• Driving too slowly.
• A brake light being out.
• Excessive window tint.
• A seatbelt violation.
• To issue a parking ticket.
• An object dangling from the rearview mirror obstructed the driver’s vision, like an air freshener or a rosary.
• Unsafe lane change or failing to signal when turning and causing any minimal effect on another vehicle.
• Tailgating.
• Using a cellphone, even if you are at a traffic light, that is not only used with hands-free functions.
• Texting while driving or appearing to be texting.
• Driving with a revoked or suspended license or an officer’s belief that the driver’s license is suspended or revoked.
• Missing a front and/or a rear license plate, either license plate covered/obstructed, or a license plate being upside down.
• Expired registration tags without a visible temporary permit displayed unless the officer has reason to believe that the permit is expired, invalid, or forged or if the officer fails to see the permit.
• Vehicle registration irregularities.
• A motorist involved in a traffic accident.
• And many more.

You may ask yourself, what if an officer stops a driver to simply investigate other potential crimes? Will the law forbid the officer from conducting such a pretextual stop? Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court, in Whren v. U.S., has stated that the determination of whether the officer has a legitimate, legal basis to conduct a traffic stop is solely an objective question. It went on to state that a police officer’s “ulterior motives can[not] invalidate police conduct that is justifiable . . . .” The California Supreme Court followed this reasoning in People v. Tully and People v. Lomax by stating that “[i]f there is a legitimate reason for the stop, the subjective motivation of the officer is irrelevant.”

Granting even more authority to police officers, the United States Supreme Court held, in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, that an officer who “has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence … may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender[,]” even if the violation is for a fine only offense. Such as the seatbelt violation in the Gomez case despite the realities that such a violation “typically would result in a brief detention for purposes of issuing a citation.” Although four of the nine Supreme Court Justices in Atwater could not agree on “a rule which deems a full custodial arrest to be reasonable in every circumstance . . . [because it is] irreconcilable with the Fourth Amendment’s command that seizures be reasonable”, the remaining five Justices decided to the contrary which is now the governing law.

In sum, the law has granted police officers with broad discretion to conduct a traffic stop for any imaginable traffic violation. Furthermore, the law grants police officers with the discretion to arrest drivers for any of these traffic violations; all while ignoring any ulterior motives behind the traffic stop. For this reason, it is of significant importance to have an experienced and knowledgeable attorney represent you in any criminal case where your freedom is at risk.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns about this issue or any other similar issues, please reach out to Albert Mendoza Law. We are here to provide the attorney you need, trust, and deserve.

Join our Newsletter to stay up to date on the issues that matter to you by clicking here.