Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01220/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01220-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Timothy W. Washington
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1220

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Nebraska.

Timothy W. Washington, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 16, 2006

Filed: August 1, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Timothy Washington entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in

possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and the district court

sentenced him to 21 months' imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release.

He appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to suppress evidence

obtained after police officers stopped the vehicle he was riding in for having a cracked

windshield. The government concedes that having a cracked windshield does not

violate Nebraska law, and Washington argues that the investigating officer therefore

did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the vehicle. We reverse

the district court's order and vacate Washington's plea and sentence.

Appellate Case: 06-1220 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Entry ID: 2073200
-2-

I.

 On March 2, 2005, Officer Scott Antoniak was conducting traffic patrol with

another officer in Omaha, Nebraska. He noticed that a 1993 Buick Regal in front of

them had a horizontal crack in the windshield that "went all the way across the

windshield at about eye level with little spider veins that come off the main crack."

The officers decided to stop the car on the basis of the "vision obstruction" caused by

the crack. They ran a data check on the driver, Kevin Wynn, which revealed that his

license was suspended, so the officers handcuffed him and escorted the passenger,

Washington, out of the car. Antoniak searched the car and discovered a loaded .22

caliber revolver under the passenger seat. Antoniak said that when he began to

question Wynn about the gun, Washington blurted out, "[I]t's mine and I carry it for

protection."

Washington was subsequently indicted for being a felon in possession of a

firearm. He moved to suppress both the firearm and his statement, arguing that they

were the fruit of an unconstitutional traffic stop, as no state statute or local ordinance

prohibited driving with a cracked windshield. At the suppression hearing, Officer

Antoniak testified to the above facts and stated that in his three and a half years as a

police officer he had stopped some 100 cars for having cracked windshields. He

explained that when he made such stops, he would issue a citation for "vision

obstruction" and agreed that in this case the cracked windshield was the only basis he

had for stopping the Buick.

In its brief to the magistrate judge, the government conceded that Officer

Antoniak made a mistake of law in believing that a cracked windshield violated the

vision obstruction statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,256. That section is entitled

"Objects placed or hung to obstruct or interfere with view of operator; unlawful;

penalty" and states: 

Appellate Case: 06-1220 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Entry ID: 2073200
-3-

It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle with any

object placed or hung in or upon such vehicle, except required or

permitted equipment of the vehicle, in such a manner as to obstruct or

interfere with the view of the operator through the windshield or to

prevent the operator from having a clear and full view of the road and

condition of traffic behind such vehicle.

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,256 (2005). The government acknowledged that no other

provision of Nebraska law prohibits driving with a cracked windshield.

The magistrate judge concluded that although Officer Antoniak was mistaken

in believing that cracked windshields violated Nebraska traffic law, his mistake of law

was objectively reasonable given his training and past experience and "It is further

reasonable to believe it would be a violation of traffic laws to operate a motor vehicle

with a vision obstruction, be it a cracked windshield or a totally obliterated

windshield." The district court adopted the report and recommendation of the

magistrate judge in its entirety and denied Washington's motion to suppress. The

court found that Antoniak misunderstood the Nebraska motor vehicle statutes but that

the misunderstanding was reasonable in light of the vision obstruction statute, Neb.

Rev. Stat. § 60-6,256, as well as the view to rear statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,254.

II.

We review the district court's findings of fact for clear error and its legal

conclusions about probable cause and reasonable suspicion de novo. Ornelas v.

United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996). Under the Fourth Amendment, a traffic stop

is reasonable if it is supported by either probable cause or an articulable and

reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred. United States v. Smart, 393

F.3d 767, 770 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2921 (2005). It is well-established

that "any traffic violation, regardless of its perceived severity, provides an officer with

probable cause to stop the driver." United States v. Jones, 275 F.3d 673, 680 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 06-1220 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Entry ID: 2073200
1

We recognize that other circuits have held that a police officer's mistake of law

can never be objectively reasonable. See United States v. McDonald, — F.3d — , No.

05-3761, 2006 WL 1975403, at *3 (7th Cir. July 17, 2006) ("We agree with the

majority of circuits to have considered the issue that a police officer's mistake of law

cannot support probable cause to conduct a stop."); United States v. Tibbets, 396 F.3d

1132, 1138 (10th Cir. 2005) ("[F]ailure to understand the law by the very person

charged with enforcing it is not objectively reasonable."); United States v.

Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d 1271, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (no matter how reasonable or

understandable a mistake of law, it cannot provide the "objectively reasonable grounds

for reasonable suspicion or probable cause"); United States v. Twilley, 222 F.3d 1092,

1096 (9th Cir. 2000) ("[I]n this circuit, a belief based on a misunderstanding of the

law cannot constitute the reasonable suspicion required for a constitutional traffic

stop."); United States v. Miller, 146 F.3d 274, 279 (5th Cir. 1998) (where officer was

mistaken about law "no objective basis for probable cause justified the stop"). 

-4-

2001). Nonetheless, the police must "objectively ha[ve] a reasonable basis for

believing that the driver has breached a traffic law." United States v. Thomas, 93 F.3d

479, 485 (8th Cir. 1996). 

We are persuaded that Officer Antoniak made a mistake of law when he

stopped the Buick for having a cracked windshield. It is clear from the plain language

of the vision obstruction provision he relied on that he was mistaken in believing that

it prohibited cracked windshields, as it only applies to physical objects that obstruct

a driver's view. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,256. Furthermore, the view to rear statute

mentioned by the district court is similarly inapplicable to the facts of this case as it

addresses only obstructions that affect a driver's ability to see what is behind the

vehicle. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,254 (2005). Finally, the government concedes

that no other Nebraska law or Omaha city ordinance exists which bans driving with

a cracked windshield.

In our circuit, if an officer makes a traffic stop based on a mistake of law, the

legal determination of whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion existed for the

stop is judged by whether the mistake of law was an "objectively reasonable one."1

Appellate Case: 06-1220 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Entry ID: 2073200
-5-

Smart, 393 F.3d at 770. Therefore, the constitutionality of the traffic stop in this case

depends on whether Officer Antoniak's belief that a state law was violated was

objectively reasonable. His subjective good faith belief about the content of the law

is irrelevant to our inquiry, "for officers have an obligation to understand the laws that

they are entrusted with enforcing, at least to a level that is objectively reasonable."

United States v. Martin, 411 F.3d 998, 1001 (8th Cir. 2005). 

The question of how to determine whether a mistake of law is "objectively

reasonable" was recently addressed in Martin, where we affirmed the denial of a

motion to suppress based on an officer's objectively reasonable belief that operating

a motor vehicle with one non-functioning brake light violated a particular provision

of tribal law. 411 F.3d at 1001-02. We determined that the officer's mistake of law

was objectively reasonable based on the statute's "counterintuitive and confusing"

language and concluded that "the level of clarity [of the statute] falls short of that

required to declare Officer Grube's belief and actions objectively unreasonable under

the circumstances." Id. at 1002. The officer argued that his mistaken interpretation

of the law -- that it required two functioning brake lights -- was "common

knowledge." In light of the ambiguities in the statute, we noted that the following

factors would be relevant to the objective reasonableness of the officer's belief: "the

drafting history of the Code, prior enforcement of the Code's provision concerning

'stop lights,' the training of police concerning the requirements of the Code, or

previous judicial interpretations of the 'stop lights' provision." Id. at 1001.

The instant case is distinguishable from Martin as we are not confronted with

any "counterintuitive and confusing" motor statutes that might prohibit cracked

windshields. Rather, § 60-6,256 clearly does not prohibit the conduct Officer

Antoniak thought it did, and this is an unusual case as the government concedes that

no other motor statute or ordinance forbids cracked windshields. Moreover, the

government has not presented any evidence of police manuals or training materials,

Appellate Case: 06-1220 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Entry ID: 2073200
-6-

state case law, legislative history, or any other state custom or practice that would

create some objectively reasonable basis for the traffic stop.

Consequently, the district court erred in adopting the magistrate judge's

conclusion that Officer Antoniak's mistake of law was objectively reasonable based

on Antoniak's "training and past experiences of prior traffic citation cases involving

cracked windshields." There is no evidence that Antoniak was trained by the police

department to make stops on the basis of cracked windshields. Antoniak's own past

practices were based on the same mistake of law and do not create a justification for

future stops. The district court also erred in adopting the magistrate judge's statement

that the mistake of law was objectively reasonable because it would be reasonable for

an officer to believe that having a cracked windshield must violate some traffic law

in Nebraska. The concept of an objectively reasonable mistake of law cannot be so

unmoored from actual legal authority. Where there is a basis in state law for an

officer's action and some ambiguity or state custom that caused the officer to make the

mistake, it may be objectively reasonable. See Martin, 411 F.3d at 1001-02. However,

in the absence of such evidence, officers cannot act upon misunderstandings of clear

statutes or, worse yet, their own notions of what the law ought to be.

Officers have broad authority to stop vehicles for any traffic violation,

regardless of how minor, but they must have a legal justification for the stop that is

grounded in the state's law. We conclude that Antoniak's understanding of Nebraska

law was unreasonable and that the government has therefore failed to establish that

it had probable cause to stop the Buick. The traffic stop was unconstitutional, and the

firearm and Washington's statements to the police should have been suppressed.

Accordingly, we vacate Washington's conviction and sentence. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1220 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Entry ID: 2073200