Tenth Circuit US v. Nicholson 11-2169

Decision here.

   Nicholson was driving in Roswell, NM.  Officer Baker was driving behind him, and saw Nicholson make what he thought was an improper turn (more on that in a minute).  Baker conducted a traffic stop.  During the stop, he smelled weed and saw a police scanner and some meth pipes.  Nicholson refused to consent to a search of the vehicle (and in NM, state courts have ruled that the Carroll doctrine doesn't apply because the NM constitution affords more protection against searches than the federal one).

   Baker released Nicholson with a ticket for the improper turn, but seized his car and sought a search warrant.  After receiving and executing the warrant, he found meth.  Baker was indicted, and moved to suppress everything as the fruit of an illegal stop.  The motion was denied, and he eventually pled guilty while reserving his right to appeal the motion to suppress.  He appealed, and the case made its way to the Tenth Circuit.

   So... about that improper turn... it wasn't.  Basically, he turned left into the right lane.  That's a violation in many states, but NM isn't one of them (the NM law regarding left turns has really wonky wording that essentially requires a turning vehicle to stay to the left in the middle of the intersection, but doesn't dictate what lane the turn should be completed in).  

   Now, the law does allow for reasonable suspicion to be based on a mistake of fact.  If an officer relies on facts that he reasonably believes to be true (but which turn out to be false) to justify a stop, the stop is still good.  But the law does not allow for reasonable suspicion to be based on a mistake of law.  If an officer thinks that something is illegal (even though it's actually not), and stops someone for doing it, then that stop is no good.

   A fine point here: an officer doesn't actually have to be correct about which law he is enforcing, so long as the facts known to him justify a stop for a violation of some law.  For example: let's say you see a guy walking his dog with a ten foot leash and you stop him for jaywalking.  Unbeknownst to you, there is a provision in the city code which says that pedestrians always have the right of way on that street (so even though he did what you thought he did, it wasn't illegal).  But there's also a law that you didn't even know about that says dog leashes can't be longer than five feet.  So, even though you thought (incorrectly) that you could stop him for jaywalking, the stop would still be good because the facts known to you justified stopping him for an illegal dog leash (even though you didn't know it was illegal).

   Hmm... that example was stupid.  Let me try to simplify: the courts take whatever facts you testify to, and they apply them to the law.  Not to what you may think the law says, but to what the law actually said.  As long as those facts justify stopping someone for violating any law, the stop is good (whether or not you were right about which law you could stop them for).  Unfortunately for Officer Baker, that isn't what happened here.  Baker stopped Nicholson for doing something that wasn't illegal, and he didn't have any other reason to stop him.  So the Tenth reveresed the denial of the motion to suppress the stop, and Nicholson's conviction was vacated.