# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 10 73

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

$4 5,0 00 .00 in Uni te d S ta te s C ur ren cy

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

Carl os Mart in s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Cl ai man t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka – Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 26 , 20 13

Fi le d: Apri l 1 6, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

Carl os Mar ti ns ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's or de r de nyin g hi s po st -tr ia l m ot io n

to su pp res s ev id en ce ob ta in ed as th e res ul t of a tra ffi c st op

. Fo r th e reas on s se t fo rthbe lo w, we ho ld th at th e tra ffi c st op was un co ns ti tu ti on al an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d b y no t s up pr es si ng th e ev id en ce. Acco rd in gl y , we rev ers e.

I. Back gr ou nd

On Aug us t 2, 20 10

, can in e of fic er Dep ut y Dav id W in tl e sa w Mar ti ns tra ve li ng

wes t on In te rs ta t e 80 ("I -8 0" ) ou ts id e of Om ah a, Neb ras ka

. Dep ut y W in tl e be ga n 1

fo ll owi ng Mar ti ns an d in it ia ll y was un ab le to read th e is su in g st at e's na m e (Uta h) on

th e li cen se pl at e affi x e d t o Mar ti ns 's ve hi cl e. Mar ti ns th en m ad e a se rie s of la ne

ch an ge s an d su bs eq ue nt ly ex it ed th e hi gh way

. Dep ut y W in tl e al so ex it ed an d pu ll ed

ov er Mar ti ns fo r vi ol at in g Neb ras ka Rev is ed St at ut e § 60 -3 99 (2 ), whi ch pr ov id es as

fo ll ows :

All le tt ers
, nu m be rs
, pr in ti ng
, w r i t i ng
, an d ot he r
id en ti fic at io n m ark s up on su ch [li cen s e ] pl at es an d
[reg is tra ti on ] cert ifi cat e sh al l be ke pt cl ear an d di st in ct an d

free fro m gr eas e, du st

, or ot he r bl ur rin g m at te r, so th at th ey
sh al l b e pl ai nl y vi si bl e at al l ti m es du rin g da y li gh t an d

un de r art ifi ci al li gh t i n t he ni gh tt im e.

It was la te r de te rm in ed th at Mar ti ns ha d a ba ck -u p cam era m ou nt ed ne ar t h e to p of

hi s re ar l ic en se pl at e.

Dur in g th e tra ffi c st op
, Dep ut y W in tl e ha d to as k Mar ti ns se ve ral ti m es to si t

i n h i s sq ua d car wit h hi m whi le he pr oc es se d pa pe rwo rk be fo re Mar ti ns co m pl i e d

.
W hi le in th e sq ua d car, Mar ti ns di d n o t w a n t t o ta lk wit h Dep ut y W in tl e or an swe r

Dep ut y W in tl e's qu es ti on s an d ap pe ared "ar gu m en ta ti ve " (th ou gh it is un co nt es te d

th at Mar ti ns ne ve r po se d a ph y si cal th reat to Dep ut y Win tl e). Afte r al l bu si ne ss

The re is co nf

li ct in g te st im on y as to whe th er Dep ut y W in tl e was al so tra ve li ng 1

wes t on I-8 0 or was pu ll ed of f to th e sh ou ld er an d st at io na ry as Mar ti ns pa ss ed hi m

.

-2

-rel at in g to Mar ti ns 's li cen se pl at e was co m pl et ed

, an d aft er Dep ut y W in tl e ret ur ne d

2

Mar ti ns 's dr iv er's li cen se an d ve hi cl e-re g is tra ti on pa pe rs to hi m
, Dep ut y W in tl e

refu se d to al lo w Mar ti ns to le av e th e sq ua d car. Dep ut y W in tl e fo un d it un us ua l th at

Mar ti ns , as a n in te rs ta te tra ve le r jus t pas si ng th ro ug h Nebra sk a o n h is way ho m e to

Utah

, to ok th e ex it th at he di d bec au se th at ex it do es no t pr ov id e eas y acce ss to fu el

an d ot he r cu st om ary ro ad -tr ip se rv ic es an d am en it ie s. Dep ut y W in tl e to ld Mar ti ns to

"jus t si t ti gh t" whi le he to ok hi s dr ug d o g
, K u b o
, t o sn iff th e ex te rio r of Mar ti ns 's

ve hi cl e. Kub o "al ert ed " at th e rear of th e ve hi cl e an d, aft er Dep ut y Wi n t l e l e d hi m

aro un d to th e ot he r si de

, "i nd ic at ed " at th e pa ss en ge r's si de

. Thi s in it ia l sn iff to ok no

m or e th an two m in ut es

. Dep ut y W in tl e th en cal le d for a ss is ta nc e an d s ub se qu en tl y

co nd uc te d a fu ll se arch of Mar ti ns 's ve hi cl e aft er a se co nd of fic er arri ve d at th e sc en e.

Dep u t y W in tl e fo un d th e fo ll owi ng it em s in si de Mar ti ns 's ve hi cl e: a sm al l

ru bb er-b an de d bu nd le of m on ey an d lo os e cas h in th e po ck et of a do or ; a sl eep in g pa d

in th e b ack se at ; two co ol ers th at Dep ut y W in tl e pe rcei ve d as sm el li ng of raw

m ari juan a; an d two va cu um -s eal ed ba gs of ru bb er-b an de d bu nd le s of cas h st or ed in

a lo ck -b ox in si de a fact or y

- mad e st or ag e area of th e ve hi cl e. The cas h in si de th e

va cu um -s eal ed ba gs to ta le d $ 45 ,00 0.0 0. No m ari juan a o r ot he r dr ug s wer e fo un d.

Dep ut y W in tl e se iz ed th e $ 4 5

, 0 0 0 .00 an d tra ns po rte d it ba ck to th e lo cal

s h e rif f's of fic e whe re la w-en fo rcem en t of fic ers pu t Kub o th ro ug h a se rie s of te st s

. Fi rs t, of fic ers pl aced ci rcu la te d an d un ci rcu la te d m on ey be hi nd lo ck ers ; Kub o di d no t

reac t. The of

fic ers th en pu t th e se iz ed m on ey in a lo ck er an d Kub o "i nd ic at ed " at th e

lo ck er whe re th e m on ey was hi dd en

. Bas ed on Kub o's reac ti on s an d Dep ut y W in tl e's

ob se rv at io ns of Mar ti ns 's be ha vi o r du rin g th e tra ffi c st op an d th e co nt en ts of

Mar ti ns 's ve hi cl e, th e go ve rn m en t su sp ect ed th at th e se iz ed m on ey was co nn ect ed to

dr ug tra ffi ck in g and in st it ut ed a ci vi l in rem fo rfei tu re lawsu it ag ai ns t th e cu rren cy

.
Mar ti ns , ho wev er, was no t ch arg ed wit h a ny crim e.

Dep ut y W in tl e d id no t i ss ue a ti ck et to Mart in s fo r th e al le ge d v io la ti on

. 2

-3

-Pri or to th e fo rfei tu re tri al

, Mar ti ns m ov ed to su pp res s ev id en ce ob ta in ed fro m

th e tra ffi c st op

. At a s up pr es si on he ari ng be fo re a m ag is tra te jud ge
, Dep ut y W in tl e

te st ifi ed on di rect ex am in at io n th at he was no t ab le to r e a d M a r t i n s's li cen se pl at e

un ti l af te r he ex it ed I-8 0 a nd was s to pp in g M art in s:

Q:

. . . Dur in g th e ti m e th at y ou 're fo ll owi ng [Ma rti ns ] an d

up to th e po in t whe re th e two of y ou are st op pe d, ha ve

y ou

. . . be en ab le to see th e p la te m or e cl earl y ?

A: No, [b e]caus e I ne v e r r e al ly ge t cl os e en ou gh to hi m

un ti l th e fin al tra ffi c st op a n d t h a t ' s whe n I ge t rat he r
cl os e to ve hi cl es

. Q: Oka y

. Wh e n were y ou ab le to de te rm in e th en wha t

st at e th e p la te was fr om ?

A: I ' m no t su re of th e ex act on e. I kn ow I ad vi se d my
di sp at ch th at it was a Utah pl at e
, a n d it was —i t was
ki nd of a—a gu es s as t o t h e w ay th e le tt ers were
sh ap ed th at it —wh at I was se ei ng th at it co ul d be a
Utah

. . . . Q: W he n d id y ou tel l your di sp at ch th at ?

A: As t he ve hi cl e was st op pi ng , as I'm m ak in g t he st op

.

Su pp res si on Hr'g Tr. 1 6– 17 , Jan . 10 , 20 12

.

Bas ed on th e ab ov e te st im on y
, th e m ag is tra te jud ge d e t e r mi n ed th at Dep ut y

W in tl e ha d pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at Mar ti ns w a s v io la ti ng § 60 -3 99 (2 ) an d

reco m m en de d de nyin g Mar ti ns 's m ot io n to su pp res s th e ev id en ce. The di st ric t co ur t

ag reed an d ad op te d th e m ag is tra te jud ge 's reco m m en da t i o n in it s en ti ret y

. Sp eci fic al ly, th e di st r i c t co ur t ad op te d th e fo ll owi ng fact ua l fin di ng : "Th e [tr affi c]

st op oc cu rs so m ewh ere on th e ex it

. . . t o We s t C e n t e r Ro ad fro m I-8 0 an d at th at

ti me—o r ap

pr ox ima te ly at th at ti me it be co m es kn own to [Dep ut y W in tl e] th at he is

de al in g wit h a Utah pl at e or wha t he ha s su sp ic io n t o b e a U t a h pl at e an d th at 's

-4

-co m

m un ic at ed wit h th e di sp at ch er." Id . a t 51 (em ph as is ad de d)

. Th e di st ric t co ur t

fu rth e r st at ed th e fo ll owi ng reg ard in g Dep ut y W in tl e's ba si s fo r st op pi ng Mar ti ns :
"Dep ut y W in tl e

. . . st op pe d Mar ti ns 's ve hi cl e be ca us e Dep ut y W in tl e co ul d no t re ad

th e li cen se pl at e on th e re ar of th e veh ic le

. Sp eci fic al ly, Dep ut y W in tl e was un ab le

to de te rm in e whi ch st at e is su ed th e p la te ." (Em ph as is ad de d.)

At th e su bs eq ue nt be nc h tri al

, Dep ut y W in tl e te st ifi ed di ffer en tl y reg ard in g hi s

ab il it y to read Mart in s's li cen se pl at e p rio r to st op pi ng Mart in s:

(On di rect ex am in at io n)

Q:

. . . W ha t, if an y th in g, dr ew yo u r a tt en ti on to [Ma rti ns ]?

A: W he n I ob se rv ed hi s ve hi cl e, I co ul dn 't read hi s li cen se pl at e. It ha d a—s or t o f a ba ck up vi de o cam era

m ou nt ed to th e to p of th e pl at e th at was ob st ru ct in g th e pl at e. I h a d t o ge t cl os e to th e ve hi cl e be fo re I co ul d

act ua ll y see what st at e th e v eh ic le was fr om

. Q: So di d you do th at ?

A: Yes , I di d.

Q: And ho w di d you go ab ou t d oi ng th at , Depu ty?

A: I jus t ac cel erat ed up an d d ro ve up clo se to hi m

. Q: Oka y . So you 're d riv in g n ex t t o h im si de by sid e?

A: Yes

. I di dn 't dr iv e—I do n't be li ev e I act ua ll y dr ov e up
be si de hi m bu t cam e wit hi n a hu nd red f eet of hi m to

se e th e p la te

.

Tria l Tr. 1 3– 14 , Nov . 16 , 20 12

.

-5

-(On cro ss -ex am in at io n)

Q: You i n d i cat ed on y ou r di rect te st im on y
, si r, th at y ou

st op pe d [Ma rti ns 's] ve hi cl e as he was su sp ic io us ly

ex it in g I- 80 ; i s t ha t co rrec t?

A: I st op pe d hi m fo r an ob st ru ct ed li cen se pl at e ; b u t hi s
le av in g In te rs ta te 80 rai se d so m e su sp ic io ns w i t h m e,

y es

. Q: You in di cat ed on y ou r di rect te st im on y th at y ou ha d to

ge t wit hi n a hu nd r ed feet in or de r to read th e li cen se pl at e; is th at rig ht ?

A: Yes

. Q: And aft er y ou were ab le to read th e li cen se pl at e,
he —I'm no t try in g to pu t wo rd s in y ou r m ou th

, bu t he

ab ru pt ly exi te d t he hi gh way ?

A: I wou ld n't say abru pt ly. Bas ic al ly i n a m il e pe rio d h e
ch an ge d fo ur la ne s of tra ffi c, so no t ab ru pt ly, bu t it was

a co nt in uo us lan e ch an ge

. Q: So

, as yo u ' r e m on it or in g hi m
, in y ou r m in d, th is is a

ve hi cl e whi ch is ob vi ou sl y ou t of pl ace; is th at co rrec t?

A: I do n ' t k no w i f I un de rs ta nd wha t y ou m ean by o ut of pl ace.

Q: St rik e th at qu es ti on , if I m ay

. You reco gn iz e th at th is

is a ve hi cl e he ad in g wes t wit h Uta h p l at es ; is th at

co rrec t?

A: Yes

.

Id . at 3 1– 32

.

Afte r th e fo rfei tu re t ria l was co m pl et ed

, th e di st ric t cou rt det erm in ed th at th e

go ve rn m en t m et it s bu rd en of pr ov in g by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev i d e n c e th at a

"s ub st an ti al co nn ect io n" ex is te d be twee n th e se iz ed m on ey an d dr ug tra ffi ck in g, se e

-6

-18 U.S.C. § 98 3( c)(1 ), (3 ), an d o r de red th e $4 5,0 00 .00 to be fo rfei te d. Mar ti ns

su bs eq ue nt ly fil ed a po st -tr ia l m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n of th e di st ric t co ur t's or de r

de nyin g hi s pr et ria l su pp res si on m ot io n, an d th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th at m ot io n as

well

. In de nyin g M a r t i n s ' s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n, th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed th at

it

fo un d "n o m at eri al di sc rep a nc ie s" be twee n Dep ut y W in tl e's su pp res si on -h eari ng

te st im on y an d h is tri al tes ti m on y

.

Mar ti n s r a i s es th ree is su es on ap pe al

. Fi rs t, Mar ti ns arg ue s th at th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s po st -tr ia l m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n. Sp eci fic al ly, Mar ti ns

mai nt ai ns th at Dep ut y W in tl e la ck ed pr ob ab le cau se to pu ll hi m ov er an d t h a t t h e

in it ia l tra ffi c st op was un co ns ti tu ti on al in th at it vi ol at ed hi s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht

to be f r e e f r om un reas on ab le se iz ur es

. Seco nd , M art in s arg ue s th at th e su bs eq ue nt

can in e sn iff

of h is ve hi cl e was als o u nc on st it ut io na l beca us e Dep ut y W in tl e h ad no

ba si s to fu rth er de ta in hi m in th e sq ua d car aft er al l bu si ne ss rel at in g to th e al le ge dl y

ob st ru ct ed li cen se pl at e was co m pl et ed

. Thi rd

, Mar ti ns arg ue s th at ev en if th ere were

no co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns le ad in g up to th e se iz ur e of t he $4 5,0 00 .00

, th e

go ve rn m en t d id no t m eet it s b ur de n o f pr ov in g a "s ub st an ti al co nn ect io n."

II. Ana lysis

Thi s Cou rt r ev ie ws d e n ov o t he di st ric t co ur t's le ga l con cl us io ns on a m ot io n

to su pp res s an d rev ie ws fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Van ov er,

63 0 F .3d 11 08 , 11 13 –1 4 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ). The C ou rt wil l " affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t's

de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce un le ss it is un s u p p o rte d by su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce, ba se d on an erro ne ou s in te rp ret at io n of ap pl ic ab le la w, or
, ba se d on th e

en ti re reco rd

, it is cl ear a m is ta k e was m ad e." Id

. at 11 14 (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. "Be cau se fo rfei tu re pr oc eed in gs are qu as i-c riminal in

ch arac te r, th e ex cl us io na ry ru le ap pl ie s ba rri ng ev id en ce ob ta in ed in vi ol at io n of th e

-7

-Fo ur th Am en dm en t." Uni te d St at es v. $7 ,85 0.0 0 in U.S. Cu rren cy
, 7 F.3 d 13 55

, 13 57

(8 th Cir . 19 93 ).

A. Depu ty W in tl e's Co nf li ct in g Tes ti m on ie s

Befo re an al y zi ng th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e tra ffi c st op
, i t i s ne ces sa ry to

ad dr es s th e in co ns is te nc ie s be twee n Dep ut y W in tl e's te st im on ie s. At th e su pp res si on

he ari ng , De pu ty Wint le te st ifi ed th at he ha d to "g ue ss " th at Mar ti ns 's v e h i cl e ha d a

Utah li cen se pl at e ba se d on "t he way th e le tt ers were sh ap ed ." (On e co u l d a l s o

as su m e th at th is was an "ed uc at ed gu es s" gi ve n th e fact th at an y po li ce of fic er

pa tro ll in g I-8 0 th ro ug h Om ah a wo u ld se e vi rtu al ly ev ery st at e's li cen se pl at es on a

d a i ly ba si s—

pa rti cu la rly pl at es fro m th os e st at es th ro ug h whi ch I-8 0 pa ss es
, in cl ud in g Utah .) On th e ot he r ha nd

, Dep ut y W in tl e te st ifi ed at tri al th at he was ab le

to read Mar ti ns 's li cen se pl at e an d te ll whi ch st at e is su ed th e pl at e whe n he pu ll ed to

wit hi n 10 0 feet of Mar ti ns 's ve hi cl e. At tri al

, Dep ut y W in tl e ga ve no in di cat io n th at

he ha d t o " gu es s" as t o t he is su in g s ta te 's n am e o n M art in s's li cen se pl at e.

In th e or de r de nyin g Mar ti ns 's po st -tr ia l m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n, th e di st ric t

co ur t in di cat ed th at sh e co ns id ered Dep ut y W in tl e's te sti m ony at tri al —t es ti m on y th at

sh e pe rs on al ly ob se rv ed

—t o be cred ib le

. Sh e wen t on to st at e, ho wev er, th at sh e di d

no t c o n s i d er th ere to be an y m at eri al di sc rep an ci es be twee n Dep ut y W in tl e's

te st im on y at th e su pp res si on he ari ng
, in whi ch he te st ifi ed th at he ha d to "g ue ss " th e

is su in g st at e of Mar ti ns 's li cen se pl at e, an d hi s te st im on y at tri al

, in whi ch he te st ifi ed

th at he co ul d read th e li cen se pl at e fro m wit hi n 10 0 feet

. We d i s a g ree. Fo r th e

reas on s th at we ex pl ai n m or e fu ll y be lo w, it is ou r vi ew th at if Depu ty W in tl e co ul d

read Mar ti ns 's li cen se pl at e fro m wit hi n 1 00 feet of th e ve hi cl e, he la ck ed pr ob ab le

cau se for a tr affi c st op

.

Afte r th e di st r i c t co ur t m ad e it s pr ep arat or y st at em en ts th at Dep ut y W in tl e's

tri al te st im on y was cred ib le an d th at th ere were no m at eri al di sc rep an ci es be twee n hi s

-8

-tri al te st im on y a n d s u pp res si on -h eari ng te st im on y
, th e di st ric t co ur t th en m ad e a

fact ua l fin di ng th at Dep ut y W in tl e "g ue ss ed " as to th e st at e na m e on Mar ti ns 's li cen se
pl at e. W e reco gn i ze th at "t he [d is tri ct ] co ur t's cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns req ui re a

hi gh de gr ee of de fere nc e," Uni te d St at es v. W rig ht

, 51 2 F.3 d 4 6 6

, 4 7 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 08 ), an d th at "[w]her e th ere are two pe rm is si bl e vi ews of th e ev id en ce, th e

fact fin de r's ch oi ce b et ween th em can no t b e cl earl y

erro ne ou s," And ers on v. Cit y of

Bes se m er Ci ty, 47 0 U.S. 56 4, 57 4 (1 98 5)

. Howev er, ba se d on th e di st ric t co ur t's

fin di ng th at Dep ut y W in tl e's tri al te st im on y was cred ib le

, we qu es ti on how th e di st ric t

co ur t c a n cred it th e earl ie r-g iv en su pp res si on -h eari ng te st im on y th at sh e di d no t

ob se rv e ov er th e te st im on y th at sh e di d o bs erv e an d fo un d to be cred ib le

. The

go ve rn m en t arg ue s in su pp or t of th e di st ric t co ur t th at th ere are no in co ns is te n c i e s

be twee n Dep ut y W in tl e's te st im on ie s, or to th e ex te nt th at th ere is an in co ns is te nc y
, it is irr el ev an t be cau se th ere is no di ffer en ce be twee n a li cen se pl at e th at is pa rti al ly

ob sc ur ed bu t st il l read ab le an d a li cen se pl at e th at can n o t b e r e ad at al l. As

pr ev io us ly st at ed

, ho wev er, it is ou r co nc lu si on th at th e di ffer en ce is m at eri al

, an d

th at gi ve n th e fact th at Dep ut y W in tl e ve ry sp eci fic al ly te st ifi ed

, cred ib ly, at tri al th at

he co ul d re ad Mar ti ns 's l ic en se pl at e, an y fact ua l fi nd in g t ha t Dep ut y W in tl e h ad to

gu es s as to th e s t a t e n a me o n th e pl at e was cl earl y erro ne ou s. See Uni te d St at es v.

Mar ti n, 98 2 F.2 d 12 36

, 12 40 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) ("Ou r co nc lu si on th at th e m ot io n to

su pp res s was pr op erl y de ni ed is ba se d in pa rt up on th e of fic ers ' su bs eq ue nt te st im on y

at tri al

. . . . [I]t is cl ear th at

, in rev ie win g th e de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s, we mus t

exa min e th e en ti re re co rd

, no t mer el

y th e evi de nc e a d

d u ced at th e su

pp re ss io n

he ar in g. " (em

ph as is ad de d) ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Bl ack sh ie rs
, 52 F.3 d 33 1 (8 th

Ci r. 19 95 ) (p er cu ria m ) (u np ub li sh ed ta bl e de ci si on ) (aff irming

, aft er tri al

, a pr et ria l

or de r de nyin g th e de fen da nt 's m ot io n to su pp res s an d st at in g th at "[ g ] iv en th e

te st imo ny at

tr ia l , th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t cl earl y err . . . ." (em

ph as is ad de d) ).

Our de te rm in at io n th at th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y erre d in ch arac te riz in g th e fact s

in it s or de r on Mar ti ns 's m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n do es no t res ol ve th e ul ti m at e is su e

be fo re us —t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e tra ffi c st op

. W e tu rn no w to whe th er Dep ut y

-9

-W in tl e's st op of Mar ti ns vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, acce pt in g as tru e th e fact s

as de sc rib ed in Dep ut y W in tl e's la te r-g iv en tri al te st im ony th at th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d

to be cred ib le

, i.e., th at Dep ut y W in t l e w a s ab le to read th e is su in g st at e's na m e on

Mar ti ns 's l ic en se pl at e fro m wit hi n 1 00 feet whi le tra ve li ng on I-8 0.

B. Co ns ti tu ti on al it y

of t he Traffi c St op

The Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect s agai nst "unreas on ab le se arch es an d se iz ur es ."

U.S. Co ns t. am en d. IV. "A tra ffi c st op co ns ti tu te s a se iz ur e un de r th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t." Uni te d St at es v. Pera le z, 52 6 F.3 d 11 15

, 11 19 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ti ng

Dela ware v. Pro us e, 44 0 U.S. 64 8, 65 3 (1 97 9) ). "[T]he de ci s i o n t o s t o p an

au to m ob il e is reas on ab le whe re th e po li ce ha ve pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at a tra ffi c

vi ol at io n ha s oc cu rred ." W hr en v. Uni te d S t a t e s, 51 7 U.S. 80 6, 81 0 (1 99 6)

. "An y

tra ffi c vi ol at io n, ho wev er m in or
, pr ov id es pr ob ab le cau se fo r a tra ffi c st op ." Uni te d

St at es v. Bl oo m fie ld , 40 F.3d 91 0, 9 15 (8t h C ir. 1 99 4) (en ba nc ).

The ob jecti ve st an da rd go ve rn in g a n of fic er's de ci si on to st op a m ot or is t

pr ot ect s of

fic ers who ha ve a m is ta ke n be li ef th at a tra ffi c la w i s be in g br ok en

. See

Uni te d St at es v. San de rs
, 19 6 F.3 d 91 0, 91 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) ("Ev en if th e tra il er was

no t te ch ni cal ly in vi ol at io n of th e st at ut e, [th e of fic er] co ul d ha ve reas on ab ly be li ev ed

th at th e tra il er vi ol at ed th e st at ut e

. . . ."). Thi s st an da rd cu ts bo th way s, ho wev er, in

th at ev en if it is de te rm in ed aft er a tra ffi c st op th at a m ot o r i st was in fact vi ol at in g

so m e la w (tr affi c-re la te d or ot he rwis e), if it was no t ob je c t iv el y reas on ab le fo r th e

of fic er to be li ev e th at a vi ol at io n was oc cu rri ng at th e ti m e th at th e of fic er de ci de d to

effe ct th e st op
, th en th e of fic er la ck ed pr ob ab le cau se to se iz e th e m ot or is t. Id

. ("Th e

de te rm in at io n of whe th er pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d is no t to be mad e wi th th e vi si on of

hi nd si gh t

, bu t in st ead by lo o k i n g t o w h a t th e of fic er reas on ab ly kn ew at th e ti me ."

(e mp ha se s ad de d) ); se e al so W on g Su n v. Uni te d St at es
, 37 1 U.S. 47 1, 48 4 (1 96 3)

("[ W ]e ha ve co ns is te nt ly reject ed [th e pr op os it io n] th at a se arch un la wfu l at it s

in cep ti on m ay

be va li da te d by wh at it tu rn s up ."). Acco rd in gl y , t he cri ti cal in qu iry

-1 0-i n a p r o ba bl e-ca us e de te rm in at io n in th e tra ffi c-s to p co nt ex t is wha t th e st op pi n g

of fic er ob se rv ed be

fo re pu ll in g ov er a m ot or is t. See Uni te d St at es v. Ri ve ra, 37 0 F.3 d

73 0, 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) ("P ro ba bl e cau se fo r an arre st e x i s t s i f

, at th e momen t th e

ar re st wa s mad

e , th e fac ts an d c irc um st an ces wit hi n t he off ic ers ' kn owl ed ge an d of

whi ch th ey ha d reas on ab ly tru st wor th y in fo rma t i o n were su ffi ci en t to warra nt a

pr ud en t pe rs on in be li ev in g th at an of fen se ha s be en co m

m it te d." (em

ph as is ad de d) ).

The go ve rn m en t be ars th e bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng th at pr ob ab le cau se e x i s t e d

. See

Uni te d S ta te s v . And rews , 45 4 F .3d 91 9, 9 22 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

W it h t hi s fram ewo rk in m in d, we tu rn no w t o th e q ue st io n o f whe th er, b as ed

on th e fact s of th is cas e as se t fo rth in Dep ut y W in tl e's tri al te st im on y
, Dep ut y W in tl e

ha d p ro ba bl e cau se to pu ll ov er Ma rti ns

.

1. Pro ba bl e Cau se Bas ed on a Traffi c Vio la ti on

W e be gi n wit h t h e t e x t o f th e la w at is su e. As se t fo rth ab ov e, Neb ras ka

Rev is ed Sta tu te § 6 0- 39 9( 2) pro vi de s as fol lo ws:

All le tt ers
, nu m

be rs
, pr in ti ng
, writ in g
, a nd ot he r
id en ti fic at io n m ark s up on s u c h [li cen se ] pl at es an d
[reg is tra ti on ] cert ifi cat e sh al l be ke pt cl ear an d di st in ct an d

free fro m gr eas e, du st

, or ot he r bl ur rin g m at te r, so th at th ey
sh al l b e pl ai nl y vi si bl e at al l ti m es du rin g da y li gh t an d

un de r art ifi ci al li gh t i n t he ni gh tt im e.

The qu es ti on we m

us t an swe r is whe th er an in te rp ret at io n of th is st at ut e ex is ts

un de r whi ch an of

fic er who co ul d read a li cen se pl at e fro m wit hi n 10 0 feet co ul d

reas on ab ly be li ev e th ere ha d be en a vi ol at io n of th e s t a t u t e

. The an swe r to th is

qu es ti on
, we c o n c l u d e
, tu rn s on th e m ean in g of th e ph ras e "p la in ly vi si bl e." If th e

Neb ras ka le gi sl at ur e in te nd ed th at ph ras e to ou tl aw an y an d all de m in im is bl ur rin g

or ob st ru ct io n wit ho ut refe ren ce to read ab il it y
, th en Dep ut y W in tl e act ed reas on ab ly.

-1 1-If, ho wev er, th e ph ras e "p la in ly vi si bl e" en joy s a pr act ic al m ean in g su ch as

"re ad ab le ," or "re as on ab ly read ab le ," or ev en m or e co nt ex tu al ly, "g en eral ly read ab le

fo r la w en fo rcem en t an d id en ti fic at io n pu rp os es fro m wit hi n a reas on ab le di st an ce,"

th en Depu ty W in tl e's m is ta ke is no t ex cu sa bl e as a reas on ab le m is ta ke

.

As th e fo ll owi ng cas es il lu st rat e, a st an da rd of read ab il it y ha s be en th e st an da rd

ap pl ie d by Neb ras ka co ur ts

. And

, ou r ho ld in g w i t h th is in te rp ret at io n do es no t

req ui re of fic ers to be le ga l te ch ni ci an s. Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti n, 41 1 F.3 d 99 8, 10 01

(8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) ("We 'sh ou ld no t ex pe c t s t at e hi gh way pa tro lm en to in te rp ret th e

tra ffi c la ws wit h th e su bt le ty an d ex pe rti se of a cri m in al de fen se at to rn ey .'"(q uo ti ng

San de rs
, 19 6 F.3 d at 91 3) ). It req ui res on ly th at th ey "u nd ers ta nd th e la ws th at th ey

are en tru st ed wit h en fo rci ng
, at le as t to a le ve l th at is ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le ," id

., an d

no t sto p ci ti zen s on th e st reet on th e au th or it y of § 60 -3 99 (2 ) whe n th e li cen se pl at e

is ot he rwis e rea da bl e fro m wit hi n 1 00 feet

. 3

In St a t e v

. R ic ha rd so n, fo r ex am pl e, th e de fen da nt was pu ll ed ov er whe n a

pa tro l of fic er, tra ve li ng in th e op po si te di rect io n of th e de fen da nt

, in it ia ll y di d no t se e

an y li cen se pl at e on th e fro nt of th e de fen da nt 's ve hi cl e. 76 3 N.W .2d 42 0, 42 3, 42 5

(Neb

. Ct

. App

. 20 08 ). The of fic er te st ifi ed th at

, be fo re he tu rn ed aro un d to ge t be hi nd

th e de fen da nt

, he was ab le to se e a li cen se pl at e "i n th e fro nt win do w of th e ve hi cl e,

'tu ck ed in ' be twee n th e gl as s an d th e da sh bo ard ," bu t "w a s un ab le to as cert ai n th e

nu m be rs or se e th e pl at e cl earl y ." Id

. at 42 5. Dur in g th e st op
, th e of fic er le arn ed th at

th e de fen d a n t ' s l ic en se ha d be en su sp en de d, an d th e of fic er arre st ed th e de fen da nt

. Id

. The de fen da n t f

i l e d a m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce ob ta in ed fro m th e st op
,

arg ui ng th at th e of

fic er la ck ed pr ob ab le cau se to st op hi m
, an d th e tri al co ur t de ni ed

W it h th is in te r p r e t a t i on
, a gr eat de al of fle xi bi li ty rem ai ns wit hi n whi ch an 3

of fic er m ig ht reas on a b l y s t o p a car un de r th e au th or it y of § 60 -3 99 (2 ) ev en th ou gh

a co ur t m ig ht la te r fin d th e r e to ha ve be en no vi ol at io n. Tha t ran ge of fle xi bi li ty,

ho wev er, do es no t ex te nd so far as to mak e it reas on ab le to be li ev e th at a pl at e
read ab le fro m

wit hi n 1 00 feet vi ol at ed th e st at ut e.

-1 2-th e m ot io n. Th e Neb ras ka Co ur t of App eal s affi rm ed

, no ti ng th at "[a ]lth ou gh [th e

of fic er] c ou ld se e th at a li cen se pl a t e h a d b een pl aced ag ai ns t th e fro nt win ds hi el d,

he was u na bl e to re ad th e nu m be rs on th e p la te ," in vi ol at io n o f § 6 0- 39 9( 2) . Id. at

42 6 (e m ph as is ad de d)

. The co ur t, the refo re, focu se d on read ab il it y as a st an da rd in

th e ap pl ic at io n o f § 6 0- 39 9( 2)

.

Unl ik e th e of

fic er in Ri ch ard so n, Dep ut y W in tl e co ul d read th e st at e na m e on

Mar ti ns 's li cen se p l a t e fro m a reas on ab le po si ti on an d no t m erel y aft er he st op pe d 4

Mar ti ns

. See id

. A l i c e n s e p l a te is no t a bi ll bo ard

. The fact th at Dep ut y W in tl e

i n i t ia ll y co ul d no t as cert ai n th e is su in g st at e's na m e on Mar ti ns ’s li cen se p l a t e a s

Mar ti ns tra ve le d ah ead of hi m at a d i s t a n ce gr eat er th an 10 0 feet an d "i n th e ne xt 5

l a n e ov er" (p er Dep ut y W in tl e’s tri al te st im on y ) do es no t gi ve Dep ut y W in tl e

pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at Mar ti ns was v i o l a t in g § 60 -3 99 (2 ); ot he rwis e, an

of fic er co ul d pu ll ov er a m ot or is t jus t be cau se th e m ot or is t's ve hi cl e is

, fo r ex am pl e,

a gr eat d i s t a n c e i n fro nt of th e of fic er, at a sh arp an gl e to th e of fic er, or po si ti on ed

be twee n th e of

fic er an d th e su n on a br ig ht da y

. See W on g Su n, 37 1 U.S. at 48 4 ("A

co nt rary ho ld in g he re wou ld m ean th at a va gu e su sp ic io n co ul d be tra ns fo rm ed in to

pr ob ab le cau se fo r arre st by reas on of am bi gu ou s co nd uc t wh ic h th e ar re st in g of fi cer s

The pa rti es do no t arg ue ov er th e m eri ts of th e 10 0- fo ot di st an ce it se lf, bu t we 4

no te th at 10 0 feet is ap pr ox im at el y si x to se ve n av erag e v eh ic le le ng th s, an d th is

sp aci ng do es no t req ui re Dep ut y W in tl e to ta il ga te Mar ti ns or fo ll ow hi m at an un sa fe

di st an ce to as cert ai n t h e i s su in g st at e's na m e on Mar ti ns 's li cen se pl at e. Co m pa re
Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 60 -6 ,14 0( 1) ("Th e dr iv er of a m ot or ve hi cl e sh al l no t fo ll ow an ot he r

ve hi cl e m or e cl os el y th an is reas on ab le an d pru de nt

, an d su ch dr iv er sha ll ha ve du e

reg ard fo r th e sp ee d of su ch ve hi cl es an d th e tra ffi c up on an d th e co nd it io n of th e

ro ad way ."), wit h St at e v. Drag an es cu
, 75 5 N.W .2d 57

, 73 –7 4 (Neb

. 20 08 ) (o bjec ti ve

st an da rd fo r po li ce of

fic ers is to al lo w on e car le ng th be twee n ve hi cl es fo r ev ery te n

m il es pe r ho ur of s pe ed ).

Dep ut y W in tl e te st ifi ed at tri al th at he "jus t acce le rat ed up an d dr ov e up cl os e 5

to [Ma rti ns ]" to ge t wit hi n 10 0 feet of Mar ti ns an d se e Mar ti ns 's li cen se pl at e.
Tria l Tr. 1 4.

-1 3-th ems el ves ha ve pr ov ok ed ." (em ph as is ad de d) ); Uni te d St at es v. You si f, 30 8 F.3 d

82 0, 82 9 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 2 ) ("R eas on ab le su sp ic io n can no t be m an uf act ur ed by th e

po li ce t he m se lv es .").

St at e v . Rei te r, 52 4 N.W.2d 5 75 (Neb . Ct. Ap p. 1 99 4) , is als o i ns tru ct iv e. In

Rei te r, th e de fen da nt was pu ll ed ov er aro un d 3: 30 AM whe n an of f i c e r sa w hi m

dr iv in g wit ho ut an y l i c e n s e pl at es an d ap pa ren tl y wit ho ut an y in -tr an si t ta gs
, as

req ui red by N eb ras ka law. Id . at 5 77 . Onl y aft er t he de fen da nt st op pe d hi s veh ic le

an d th e of

fic er sh in ed a sp ot li gh t on th e ve hi cl e di d th e of fic er se e a pi ece of pa pe r

in th e rear w i n d o w

. Id

. Upo n fu rth er in sp ect io n an d co nt act wit h th e dr iv er, th e

of fic er no ti ced a st ro ng od or of al co ho l in th e ve hi cl e an d su bs eq ue nt ly arre st ed th e

de fen da nt fo r dr un k dri vi ng an d dri vi ng on a su sp en de d li cen se

. Id

. The de fen da nt

m ov ed to su pp res s th e ev id en ce fro m th e st op be cau se "al th ou gh th e in it ia l st op m ay

ha ve be en pr op er [wh en th e of fic er co ul d no t se e an y in -tr an si t ta gs ], aft er th e of fic er

be cam e a w a r e o f reg is tra ti on co m pl ia nc e [i.e

., whe n he sa w th e ta gs wit h th e

sp ot li gh t], he sh ou ld no t ha ve ha d co nt act wit h [th e de fen da nt ]. " Id

. at 57 8. The tri al

co ur t de ni ed th e su pp res si on m ot io n an d th e Neb r a s k a C o ur t of App eal s affi rm ed

. The ap pe ll at e co ur t no te d th at "[t he de fen da nt 's] arg um en t res ts on th e pi vo ta l fact ua l

as su m pt io n th at [th e of

fic er ] de te rm ine d that [th e de fen da nt ] ha d pr op er in -tr an si t ta gs

pr io r to m ak in g co nt act wit h hi m [,]

. . . [b ut ] it was no t cl ear whe n, if ev er, th e of fic er

be cam e aware of th e in -tr an si t ta gs ." Id

. Here, by co nt ras t, Dep ut y W in tl e st at ed at 6

W e no te th at Rei te r was de ci de d in 19 94

, i.e., be fo re th e 20 05 am en dm en ts to 6

th e rel ev an t st at ut e to ok pl ace, se e in fra no te 8. Howev er, th e co ur t in Rei te r eq ua te d

t h e th en -ap pl ic ab le st at ut or y la ng ua ge req ui rin g pr op er "d is pl ay " of a li cen se pl at e

to m ean "v is ib le ." 5 2 4 N.W .2d at 57 8 ("Th e st at ut or y ex pr es si on req ui rin g 'pr op er
di sp la y ' of pl at es an d in -tr an si t ta gs lo gi cal ly im pl ie s a di sp la y whi ch is vi si bl e.").

Alt ho ug h th e co ur t di d no t el ab or at e on wha t, ex act ly, "v is ib le " m ean s, we no te th at

in it s reci ta ti on of fact s, th e Rei te r co ur t st at ed th at th e of fic er "t ur ne d on hi s

sp ot li gh t, sh in ed it in to th e ba ck win do w, an d th en no ti ced a pi ece of pa pe r in th e rear
win do w, b ut co ul d no t te ll wh at th e pa pe r sa id at th at po in t." Id

. a t 5 7 7 (em ph as is

ad de d)

. Acco rd in gl y
, ev en th ou gh th e Rei te r co ur t op erat ed un de r a di ffer en t

-1 4-t r i a l e x a ct ly whe n he co ul d read (an d th us "b ecame aware ," se e id .) th at Mar ti ns ’s

ve hi cl e ha d a Utah li cen se pl at e—wh en Dep ut y W in tl e "ca m e [to ] wit hi n a hu nd red

feet of [ Mar ti ns ]" and whi le st il l t rav el in g o n I- 80 . Trial Tr. 14

.

Our Ci rcu it ha s ha d th e op po rtu ni ty to rev ie w ot he r st at es ' li cen se pl at e di sp la y

st at ut es bu t ha s ne ve r he ld th at a pl at e read ab le fro m 10 0 f e e t c a n b e reas on ab ly

ch arac te riz ed as no t be in g "p la in ly vi si bl e." In Uni te d St at es v. Harri s, 61 7 F.3 d 97 7,

97 8– 79 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), fo r ex am pl e, we ad dr es s e d a Mi ss ou ri st at ut e th at req ui red

li cen se pl at es to be "p la in ly vi si bl e." The re, th e of fic er who co nd uc te d th e tra ffi c st op

"t es ti fie d th at he ha d to ' ge t ri gh t up on th e veh ic le to g e t th e li cen se pl at e .'" Id

. at

97 8 (em ph as is ad de d)

. Alt ho ug h th e de fen da nt in th at cas e arg ue d th e t r a f f i c st op

was in va li d be cau se th e of fic er co ul d r e a d th e pl at e, we he ld th e of fic er ha d act ed

reas on ab ly." Thi s is co ns is te nt wit h a pr act ic al an d ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le st an da rd 7

th at wou ld di ffer en ti at e be twee n a pl at e so ob sc ur ed th at an of fic er "h ad to 'ge t rig ht

up on th e v eh ic le '" an d a pl at e th at was re ad ab le fro m wit hi n 1 00 feet

.

st at ut or y fram ewo rk

, we ne ve rth el es s fin d su pp or t in it fo r th e pr op os it io n th at on e's

ab il it y to read a li cen se pl at e is in di cat iv e of th e li cen se pl at e be in g "v is ib le " wit hi n
th e m ean in g o f § 6 0- 39 9( 2)

.

The di ss en t rel ie s in pa rt on Park s v

. S t at e, 24 7 P.3 d 85 7, 86 0 (Wy o. 20 11 ), 7

ci ti ng di ct a fro m th at co ur t st at in g th at "'p la in ly vi si bl e' an d 'cl earl y le gi bl e' in di cat e
th at a li cen se p l a t e mu s t n o t be ob st ru ct ed in an y m an ne r." Id

. at 86 0. Tha t

st at em en t, ho wev er, acco m pa ni ed th e W y om in g co ur t's de sc rip ti on of th e pu rp os e of

th e st at ut e, whi ch is : "Lice ns e pl at es ne ed to be eas il y read in or de r to faci li ta te la w

en fo rcem en t an d or di na ry ci t iz en s in rep or ti ng an d in ve st ig at in g hi t-a nd -ru n
acci de nt s, tra ffi c vi ol at i o n s, ga s- pu m p dr iv e of

fs

, an d ot he r cri m in al act iv it y ." Id

. And

, th e act ua l fact s of Park s in vo lv ed of fic er te st im on y

—t es ti m on y fo un d cred ib le

an d rel ie d up on by th e W y om in g co ur t— in whi ch th e of fic er st at ed he co ul d no t read

th e nu m be rs on th e pl at e "wh il e fo ll owi ng " th e de fen da nt 's ve hi cl e be cau se a tra il erhi tc h b al l m ou nt ob st ru ct ed th e n um be rs . Id. at 85 9.

-1 5-Fi na ll y
, we no te th at in th e or de r de nyin g Mar ti ns 's m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n,

th e d is tri ct co ur t s ta te d t he fol lo win g re ga rd in g o ne of M art in s's tri al ex hi bi ts :

Mar ti ns 's own Exh ib it

. . . sh ow[ s] hi s rear li cen se pl at e in

a br ack et

, wit h a ba ck -u p cam era m ou nt ed ab ov e th e pl at e.
The cam era ob sc ur es th e to p ha lf of th e na m e of th e is su in g

st at e: "Ut ah ." The ph ot o[ ] ap pe ar[s ] to be ta ke n at a di rect

an gl e, i.e.

, at th e sa m e he ig ht as th e pl at e. Anyon e vi ewin g
th e li cen se pl at e fro m an an gl e ab o v e t h e pl at e, e.g

. , an y
d r i v e r of an ot he r ve hi cl e, wou ld se e le ss th an ha lf th e
le tt eri ng id en ti fy in g t he is su in g s ta te

.

Fro m ou r read in g of Neb ras ka cas es de ci de d bo th be fo re an d aft er th e 20 05

am en dm en t to th e st at ut e, se e in fra no te 8, th e es se nc e of "v is ib il it y " ha s al way s be en

an of fic er's ab il it y to read te x t o n a l i c en se pl at e, no t a po st -arr es t de te rm in at io n

reg ard in g th e pe rcen ta ge or po rti on of t e x t t ha t is co ve red

. See Ri ch ard so n, 76 3

N.W .2d at 42 6 ("Al th ou gh [th e of fic er] co ul d se e th at a li cen se pl at e ha d be en pl aced

ag ai ns t th e fro nt win ds hi el d, he was un ab le t o r e a d th e nu m be rs on th e pl at e."

(em ph as is ad de d) ); Rei te r, 52 4 N.W .2d at 57 7 ("[ The of fic er] no ti ced a pi ece of pa pe r

in t h e r e a r win do w, b ut co ul d no t te ll wh at th e pa pe r sa id at th at po in t." (em ph as is

ad de d) ); s ee al so Sta te v. O'Dell , No . A- 01 -1 27 4, 2 00 2 WL 31 10 75 78 , at * 6 (Ne b.

Ct . Ap p. Sep t. 2 4, 2 00 2) (un pu bl is he d) (reject in g " th e St at e's arg um en t

. . . t ha t [an

of fic er's ] in ab il it y to co m

pl et el y se e [a] rear li cen se pl at e be cau se of [a] tra il er hi tc h

pr ov id ed th e ba s i s to st op [a m ot or is t] fo r a tra ffi c vi ol at io n," an d st at in g th at a

m ot or is t do es no t co m

m it th e "cr im e of 'im

pr op er d i sp la y ' of pl at es if a la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic er can no t se e 10 0 p e r cen t of th e pl at e")

. Here, Dep ut y W in tl e 8

W e no te th at at th e ti m e th at O'Dell was de ci de d, Neb ras ka m ot or is ts were 8

req ui red on ly to "d is pl ay " li cen se pl at es on th e fro nt an d ba ck of a ve hi cl e. See Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 60 -3 23 (2 00 4)

. The rel ev an t st at ut e was am en de d in 20 05

, ho wev er, an d

th e cu rren t v ers io n— an d t he ve rs io n in pl ace wh en Mart in s was st op pe d— req ui res
th at li cen se pl at es be "p la in ly vi si bl e." Id

. § 60 -3 99 (2 ) (2 00 5)

. Nev ert he le ss
, we fin d

-1 6-te st ifi ed at tri al th at he was ab le to read Mar ti ns 's li cen se pl at e fro m wit hi n 10 0 feet

.

Tria l Tr. 3 1 (Q: You in di cat ed in y ou r di rect te st im on y th at y ou ha d to ge t wit hi n a

hu nd red feet in or de r to read [Ma rti ns 's] li cen se pl at e; is th at rig ht ? A: Yes .). Bas ed

on th is te st im on y
, it was no t ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le to be li ev e th at Mar ti ns was

vi ol at in g § 60 -3 99 (2 ), an d t hu s Dep ut y W in tl e la ck ed pro ba bl e cau se to st op hi m

. 9

The go ve rn m en t ci te s se ve ral Eig ht h Ci rcu it cas es in su pp or t of th e pr op os it io n

th at it was ob

jecti ve ly rea s on ab le fo r Dep ut y W in tl e to be li ev e th at Mar ti ns was

vi ol at in g § 60 -3 99 (2 ). The go ve rn m en t's cas es are no t ap pl ic ab le to th e is su e be fo re

us
, ho wev er, b e c a u s e t he y each pr es en t th e sa m e se t of m at eri al ly di st in gu is ha bl e

fact s. In each of th os e cas es
, th e la w-en fo rcem en t of fic ers were no t ab le to as cert ai n

th e rel ev an t in fo rm at io n pr io r to st op pi ng th e de fen da nt s, an d th us ha d p r o b a b l e

cau se to be li ev e th at a la w was b ei ng bro ke n a t t he ti m e o f th e se iz ur es

.

O'Dell to be pe rs ua si ve ba se d on it s an al og ou s fact s an d on th e fact th a t i t h as no t

be en qu es ti on ed or o ve rru le d.

The di ss en t ch arac te riz es th e pr es en t cas e as si m pl e an d ap p e a r s to us e th e 9

co nc lu si on s of Dep ut y W in tl e, th e m ag is tra te jud g e
, a n d t he di st ric t co ur t jud ge in

th is cas e as su pp or t fo r th e le ga l co nc lu si on th at Dep ut y W in tl e act ed reas on ab ly. No

do ub t, th is reas on ab le ne ss -in -n um be rs ap pr oa ch ho ld s su bs ta nt ia l rh et or ic al ap pe al

. A n d t h e di ss en t co rrec tl y no te s th at we m us t gi ve "d ue weig ht to in fere nc es dr awn
fro m

. . . fact s by res id en t jud ge s an d lo cal la w en fo rcem en t o f f i c e r s

. " O r ne la s v.
Uni te d St at es
, 51 7 U.S. 69 0, 69 9 (1 99 6)

. The pr es en t is su e, ho wev er, is no t a fact

qu es ti on

. It is a qu es ti on of la w. Uni t ed St at es v. W as hi ng to n, 45 5 F.3 d 82 4, 82 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) ("We rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's

. . . le ga l co nc lu si on s ab ou t pr ob ab le

cau se an d reas on a b l e s us pi ci on de no vo ."). Hav in g se pa rat el y rev ie wed th e fact

qu e s t i o n in ou r Sect io n II.A an d ha vi ng reac he d ou r co nc lu si on
, de fere nc e to th e

un de rlyin g co ur ts reg ard in g th e ul ti m at e le ga l qu es ti on of r eas on ab le ne ss is no t

ap pr op ria te . In fact, it wou ld se em in co ns is te nt wit h ou r ob li ga ti on to co nd uc t a d e

no vo rev ie w. In ot he r wor ds

, we can no t carry ou t ou r fu nc ti on of a pp el la te jud ic ia l

rev ie w by rel y in g on th e lo wer co ur ts ' de te rm in at io n of reas on ab le ne ss to de ci de wha t

is reas on ab le

.

-1 7-In Uni te d S ta te s v . San ch ez, t hi s C ou rt s ta te d t he fol lo win g:

[I]t was ob

jecti ve ly reaso na bl e fo r [th e of fic er] t o s us pe ct

a t th e ti m e of th e st op th at th e pa pe r affi xe d to th e rear of

th e m in iv an was no t an of fic ia l reg is tra ti on do cu m en t fro m

an ot he r St at e. As he ap pr oa ch ed th e m in iv an fro m be hi nd

, [th e of fic er] co ul d no t se e th e na m e of an y St at e pr in te d on
th e pa pe r. Alt ho ug h th e w o r ds 'Ariz on a Tem po rary Reg is tra ti on Pl at e' ap pe ared at th e bo tt om of th e pa pe r, th e
di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in fin di ng th at th os e wo rd s

w e r e to o sma ll to be re ad by a tr oo pe r ob se rv in g th e

min iv an on th e h ig hw ay

.

57 2 F.3 d 47 5, 47 8– 79 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. By co nt ras t, Dep ut y 1 0

W in tl e was cl ear in hi s tri al te st im on y th at he was ab le t o r e a d " U ta h" whi le st il l

tra ve li ng a sa fe d is ta nc e b eh in d M art in s o n I- 80 . See s up ra n ot e 4

.

Si m il arl y
, in Uni te d St at es v. Sm art —al so ci te d by th e go ve rn m en t— it was no t

un ti l aft er th e of

fic er st op pe d th e de fen da nt th at th e of fic er was ab le to as cert ai n th e

is su in g st at e's n a me on th e de fen da nt 's li cen se pl at e to de te rm in e whe th er it was

pr op er th at th e de fen da nt di d no t ha ve a fro nt li cen se p la te

, whi ch is req ui red of

ve hi cl es reg is te red in Io wa an d cert ai n ot he r st at es

. 39 3 F.3 d 76 7, 76 9 (8 th Ci r.

20 05 ). Thi s C ou rt s et for th th e fac ts of S m art as f ol lo ws:

W e no te th at th e go ve r n men t

, whe n di sc us si ng San ch ez in it s br ie f, om it s 1 0

fro m it s lengt hy bl oc k qu ot e th e se nt en ce be gi nn in g "Al th ou gh th e wor ds " an d en di ng
"t oo sm al l to be read by a tro op er o bs erv in g t he m in iv an on th e hi gh way ." See 57 2

F.3 d at 47 9. Thi s om is si on is si gn ifi can t fo r di st in gu is hi ng San ch ez fro m th is cas e
be cau se in San ch ez, th e tro op er co ul d no t read th e rel ev an t in fo rm at io n whi le "o n th e
hi gh way ," se e id

., whe reas he re, Dep ut y W in tl e te st ifi ed at tri al th at he c o u l d read

Mar ti ns 's li cen se pl at e whi le tra ve li ng on I-8 0. See Tria l Tr. 14 ( " I do n't be li ev e I

act ua ll y dr ov e up be si de [Ma rti ns ] bu t cam e wit hi n a hu nd red feet of hi m to se e [h is ] pl at e.").

-1 8-As [th e of fic er] ap pr oa ch ed th e [d efen da nt ’s ve hi cl e] fro m
be hi nd [wh il e dr iv in g], th e of fic er ob se rv ed th at it ha d a

r e a r p la te

, bu t he co ul d no t de te rm in e fro m hi s di st an ce
wha t st at e ha d is su ed th at pl at e. . . . Bec au se th e ve hi cl e's

fai lu re to di sp la y a fro nt li cen se pl at e was a po ss ib le tra ffi c
vi ol at io n, [th e of

fic er] a ct iv at ed hi s em erg en cy li gh ts an d

st op pe d th e car fo r an in ve st ig at io n.

. . . It wa s on ly af te r [t he de fe nd an t’s ] ca r ha d st op

pe d an d [t he of

fi cer ]

ap pr oa ch ed it on fo ot th at he no ti ce d t h a t t he re wa s a
Geo rg ia pl at e o n t he rea r o f t he ca r.

Id . (em ph as is ad de d)

.

Ju st th e sa m e, in Uni te d St at es v. Hol li ns
, " O mah a po li ce sp ot te d th e
[d efen da nt 's] SUV, no ti ced th e la ck of li cen se pl at es
, st op pe d th e ve hi cl e, an d sh in ed

a sp ot l i gh t on it ." 68 5 F.3 d 70 3, 70 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). As is rel ev an t to th e is su e

be fo re us
, "[w]hen th e of

fic ers in it ia ll y ob se rv ed an d st op pe d th e SUV, it di d no t be ar

li cen se pl at es , and th ey

co ul d n ot see th e In Tran si t s ti ck er." Id . at 7 06

.

Li k e in th e Neb ras ka cas es Ri ch ard so n an d Rei te r, th e of fic ers in San ch ez,

Sm art

, an d Hol li ns di d no t po ss es s th e rel ev an t in fo rm at io n to de te rm i n e t h a t no

tra ffi c vi ol at io ns were oc cu rri ng un ti l af te r th ey st op pe d th e de fen da nt s; by co nt ras t,

D e p u t y W in tl e te st ifi ed at tri al th at he co ul d read th at Mar ti ns ha d a Utah li cen se
pl at e pr io r to pu ll in g ov er Mar ti ns an d whi le tra ve li ng on I-8 0. Thi s fact pe rta in in g

to wha t Depu ty W in tl e kn ew—a nd whe n— is cri ti cal in th e pr ob ab le -cau se an al y si s

an d re nd ers th e g ov ern m en t's cas es in ap po si te

.

2. Pro ba bl e Cau se Bas ed on Su sp ic io us Beh av io r

Mu lt ip le in no cen t an d la wfu l act s, whe n "v ie wed in th e ag gr eg at e by a tra in ed

la w en f o r c e men t of

fic er," can pr ov id e th e ne ces sa ry le ve l of su sp ic io n to jus ti fy a

st op

. Uni te d St at es v. W al ke r, 32 4 F.3 d 10 32

, 10 37 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ); se e Uni te d St at es

v. St ewart

, 6 31 F.3 d 45 3, 45 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) ("[ F]acto rs th at in di vi du al ly m ay be

-1 9-co ns is te nt wit h in no cen t b eh av io r, whe n t ak en to ge th er, can gi ve ris e to reas on ab le

su sp ic io n, ev en th ou gh s o me pe rs on s ex hi bi ti ng th os e fact or s wil l be in no cen t." ).

Here, Depu ty W in tl e te st ifi ed at tri al th at Mar ti ns 's cho ic e of a pa rti cu la r ex it off of

I-8 0 "ra is ed so m e su sp ic io n." Tria l Tr. 31 ; se e id

. at 15 ("I t's no t no rm al fo r ve hi cl es

tra ve li ng cro ss -co un try on va cat io ns or wha te ve r to ge t of f on W es t Cen te r Ro ad

. It' s

no t a no r mal r a m

p." ). Dep ut y W in tl e al so de sc rib ed hi s du ti es as a na rco ti cs

in te rd ic ti on o f

f i c e r: "We're tryin g to st op th e m ov em en t of cri m in al act iv it y al on g

In te rs ta te 80

, w h e t h e r i t ' s tra ve li ng al l th e way acro ss co un try or st at e to st at e.

. . . [ W]e do n't try an d jus t ta rg et on e area [,] [b ut ] we pr im ari ly ru n in to na r c o t i c s a n d

na rco ti cs tra ffi ck in g[ .] " Id . a t 7. Alt ho ug h no t fu ll y br ie fed

, w e a dd res s an d reject

be lo w an y res id ua l arg um en t by th e go ve rn m en t th at Dep ut y W in tl e ha d pr ob ab le

cau se to st op Mart in s fo r hi s al le ge dl y su sp ic io us in te rs ta te -tr av el be ha vi or

.

Thi s Co ur t ha s se ve ral ti m es su pp res se d ev id en ce ob ta in ed as a res ul t of

un co ns ti tu ti on al se iz ur es oc cas io ne d by of fic ers ' sus pic ion

, w he re such su sp ic io n was

ba se d so le l y o n th e fact th at de fen da nt s were en ga gi ng in le ga l act iv it y th at m erel y

ap pe ared ou t of th e or di na ry

. In Uni te d St at es v. You si f, fo r ex am pl e, po li ce of

fic ers

se t up si gn s al on g a Mi ss ou ri hi gh way kn own to be a dr ug -tr affi ck in g ro ut e al ert in g

dr iv ers of a ch eck

po in t ah ead ; th e act ua l ch eck po in t, ho wev er, was at th e en d of th e

ex it ram p fo r th e ex it aft er th e ch eck po in t si gn s

. 3 08 F.3 d 82 0, 82 3– 24 (8 th Ci r.

20 02 ). The de fen da nt dr ov e a ve h i cl e wit h Okl ah om a li cen se pl at es
, to ok th e ex it

whe re of fic ers were ru nn in g th e ch eck po in t (al be it un be kn own st to th e de fen da nt

whe n h e ex it ed ), an d sl owe d hal fway up th e ex it ram p when he saw p ol ic e o ffi cers

. Id

. at 82 4. Po li ce of

fic ers st op pe d th e de fen da nt an d fo un d m ari juan a in hi s ve hi cl e.

Id

. The de fen da nt m ov ed to su pp res s th e ev id en ce, cl ai m in g th at th e st op vi ol at ed hi s

Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s. Not wit hs ta nd in g t h e S u p rem e Co ur t's ho ld in g in Ci ty

of In d i a n a p ol is v. Edm on d, 53 1 U.S. 32 (2 00 0)

, th e di st ric t co ur t he ld th at th e 1 1

In Edm on d, th e Co ur t he ld th at "[w]hen la w en fo rcem en t au th or it ie s pu rs ue 1 1

p r i maril y ge ne ral cri m e co nt ro l pu rp os es at ch eck po in ts

. . . , st op s can o n l y b e jus ti fie d b y

so m e q ua nt um

of i nd iv id ua li zed su sp ic io n." 53 1 U.S. at 47

.

-2 0-de fen da nt 's "v ol un ta ry co ns en t to th e se arch of hi s ve hi cl e ne ve rth el es s pr ov id ed an

in de pe nd en t ba si s fo r de nyin g th e m ot io n to su pp res s." You si f, 30 8 F.3 d at 82 6– 27

.

The de fen da nt ap pe al ed

, an d th e go ve rn m en t arg ue d on ap pe al th at ev en if th e

ch eck po in t was un co ns ti tu ti on al un de r Edm on d, "t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m s ta nc es

no te d by [th e of

fic er] pr io r to th e st op of [th e de fen da nt 's] ve hi cl e su ffi ced to crea te

in di vi du al iz ed reas on ab le su sp ic io n, th ereb y ren de rin g th e st op in th is pa rti cu la r cas e

co ns ti tu ti on al ly pe rm is si bl e." Id

. at 82 8. Acco rd in g to th e go ve rn m en t, th os e

ci rcu m st an ces in cl ud ed : "t ha t [th e de fen da nt ] was dr iv in g on a hi gh way t h at was

kn own to be us ed fo r dr ug tra ffi ck in g, hi s car ha d ou t-o f-s ta te li cen se pl at es
, he

pu ll ed of f at a ru ral ex it im m ed ia te ly aft er se ei ng si gn s warn in g of a dr ug ch eck po in t

a h e ad

, an d he sl owe d al m os t to a co m pl et e st op up on se ei ng th e po li ce c h e c k p o i n t

ah ead ." Id

. Thi s Cou rt reject ed th at arg um en t and va cat ed th e d is tri ct co ur t's ord er

de nyin g t he m ot io n t o s up pr es s, s ta ti ng :

The fact s th at [th e de fen da nt ' s ] v eh ic le ha d ou t-o f-s ta te

li cen se pl at es an d was t r a v e l in g on a hi gh way th at was

" k n o wn" to th e of

fic ers as a dr ug tra ffi ck in g co rri d o r

can no t al on e jus ti fy th e st op be cau se "[t ]oo m an y pe op le fit

th is de sc rip ti on fo r it to jus ti fy a reas on a b l e su sp ic io n of

cri m in al act iv it y ." .

. . Mo reo ve r, be cau se th ere is no th in g
in he ren tl y un la wfu l or su sp ic io us ab ou t a ve hicle (even on e
wit h ou t-o f-s ta te l ic en se pl at es ) ex it in g th e hi gh way
, it

sh ou ld no t be th e cas e th at th e pl acement of si gn s by th e

po li ce i n f

r o n t of th e ex it ram

p tra ns fo rm s th at faci al ly

in no cen t be ha v i o r in to gr ou nd s fo r su sp ect in g cri m in al

act iv it y

.

Id . at 8 28 –2 9 (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Gray , 21 3 F .3d 99 8, 1 00 1 (8 th Cir . 20 00 )).

Si m il ar to You si f, in Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, an of fic er sa w th e de fen da nt

"wal ki ng acro ss a ch ur ch pa rk in g lo t weari ng a lo ng -s le ev ed ho od ed swe at sh irt an d

'cl ut ch in g th e fro nt area of hi s ho od ie po ck et wit h hi s rig ht ha nd .'" 60 6 F.3 d 96 4, 96 5

-2 1-(8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m ). The d efen da nt no ti ced th e of fic er's sq ua d car, an d th e

of fic er, aft er ci rcl in g th e bl oc k an d reg ai ni ng si gh t of th e de fen da nt

, s to pp ed an d

pa tt ed do wn th e de fen da nt to lo ok fo r weap on s. Id

. The of fic er fo un d a 9 m il li m et er

ha nd gu n in th e fro nt po ck et of th e de fen da nt 's swe at sh irt an d a lo ad ed m ag azi ne in

th e de fen da nt 's ba ck pa nt s po ck et

. The of fic er la te r de te rm in ed th at th e de fen da nt ha d

pr io r fel on y dr ug co nv ic ti on s, an d th e de fen da nt was in di ct ed fo r be in g a fel on in

po ss es si on of a fir earm . Id.

The de fen da nt m ov ed to su pp res s t he ev id en ce o n t he gro un d t ha t t he off ic er

la ck ed reas on ab le su sp ic io n t o s to p a nd fri sk hi m , and th e d is tri ct co ur t g ran te d t he

m ot io n. Th e g ov ern m en t ap pe al ed , arg ui ng th at th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e

st op ga ve th e tra in ed of

fic er reas on ab le su sp ic io n of il le ga l act iv it y

. Id

. at 96 6. Thi s

Co ur t affi rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t's or de r su p p r es si ng th e ev id en ce, st at in g th e

fo ll owi ng :

The go ve rn m en t do es su gg es t th e pr es en ce of oth er

su sp ic io us ci rcu m st an ces
, bu t al l were sh ared by co un tl es s,

w ho ll y in no cen t pe rs on s— walk in g in a hi gh -cri m e are a
, weari ng a swe at sh irt on a Sep te m be r da y th at be ga n at a

co ol 50 de gr ees in th e m or ni ng bu t war m ed to 68 de gr ees by la te aft ern oo n, an d in te nt ly watc hi ng a po li ce cru i se r
dr iv e by. In ot he r wor ds

, th e t o ta li ty of th es e
ci rcu m st an c e s
, o n whi ch ou r in qu iry m us t be ba se d, ad ds

no th in g to [th e de fen da nt 's] pr ot ect iv e cl ut ch in g of

so meth in g in hi s h oo di e p oc ke t.

. . . W it h on ly th is ci rcu m st an ce to su p p or t [th e
of fic er's ] su sp ic io n, th o u gh we are m in df ul of th e ne ed to

cred it la w en fo rceme n t of fic ers who dr aw on th ei r

ex pe rie nc e an d sp eci al i z e d tra in in g, we co nc lu de th at "[t ]oo m an y pe op le fit th is de sc rip t i o n f o r it to jus ti fy a

reas on ab le su sp ic io n o f cri m in al act iv it y ."

Id . at 9 67 (qu ot in g Gra y , 21 3 F .3d at 1 00 1)

.

-2 2-The Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t h a s reac he d a co nc lu si on si m il ar to th e

co nc lu si on s in You si f an d J on es when ap pl y in g Neb ras ka 's t raff ic laws . In Stat e v.

Ch il ds

, an of

fic er pu ll ed ov er th e de fen da nt whe n th e o ffi cer no ti ced in -tr an si t

st ic ke rs on bo th th e fro nt an d rear of th e de fen da nt 's ve hi cl e. 4 9 5 N.W .2d 47 5,

47 6– 77 (Neb

. 19 93 ). The of fic er "wal ke d by th e 'In Tran si t' st ic ke r di sp la y ed on on e

of th e [v eh ic le 's] win do ws, no te d th at th e st ic ke r was st il l wit hi n th e In Tran si t pe rio d

an d was th eref

or e va li d" an d th at th e st ic ke r was di sp la y ed in th e co rrec t lo cat io n on

th e ve hi cl e; no ne th el es s, th e of fic er wen t to th e dr iv er's win do w to as k th e de fen da nt

fo r a b i l l of sa le

. Id

. at 47 7. The of fic er no ti ced th at th e de fen da nt ap pe ared

in to xi cat ed

, an d th e de fen da nt was arre st ed fo r dr un k dr iv in g

. I d. The de fen da nt

m ov ed to su pp res s th e e v i d e n c e
, w hi ch th e tri al co ur t de ni ed an d an ap pe al s co ur t

affi rm ed

. The Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t, ho w e v e r
, rev ers ed an d ru le d th at th e

de fen da nt 's Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s ha d be en vi ol at ed

. The go ve rn m en t arg ue d in

Ch il ds th at t he of

fic er "h ad a pa rti cu la riz ed su sp ic io n th at [th e de fen da nt ] was

vi ol at in g [Neb ras ka la w] be cau se
, in ev ery si tu at io n whe re a m ot or is t dr iv es a car

di sp la y in g an In Tran si t de cal

, th e of fic er who se es a ca r b e i n g d r i v en on a st reet

wit ho ut pl at es s h ou ld su sp ect a vi ol at io n is oc cu rri ng in hi s pr es en ce." Id

. at 48 1

(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t, aft er rev ie win g

se ve ral U.S. Su pr em e Co ur t cas es
, reject ed th is arg um en t, st at in g th at "t he res ul t

wou ld be a co ns ti tu ti on al ly su sp ect pr es um pt io n th at ev e r y mo to ris t who us es In

Tran si t de cal s is pr es um ed to be a la wbr eak er in vo lv ed i n c r i m in al act iv it y ." Id . a t

48 1.

The reas on in g in You si f, Jo ne s, an d Ch il ds ap pl ie s equ al ly to th is cas e. Tha t

Mar ti ns dr ov e a ve hi cl e wit h no n- Neb ras ka li cen se pl at es an d ex it ed fro m I-8 0 at an

un li ke ly ex it fo r cro ss -co un try tra ve le rs (acc or di ng to D ep ut y W in tl e) do es no t

pr ov id e Dep ut y W in tl e wit h th e req ui si te le ve l of su sp ic io n to st op hi m

. See Rei d v.

Geo rg ia , 4 48 U.S. 43 8, 4 41 (19 80 ) ("Th e o th er ci rcu m st an ces de sc rib e a ve ry la rg e

cat eg or y of pr es um ab ly in no cen t tra ve le rs
, who wou ld be su bjec t to vi rtu al ly ran do m

se iz ur es were th e Co ur t to co nc lu de th at as li tt le fo un da ti on as th ere was in th is cas e

co ul d jus ti fy a se iz ur e."); Jo hn so n v. Ca mp b e l l

, 33 2 F.3 d 19 9, 20 8 (3 d Ci r. 20 03 )

-2 3-("Th ere are li mits

. . . to ho w far po li ce tra in in g an d ex pe rie nc e can go to ward s

fin di ng la te nt cri m in al it y in in no cen t ac t s ."). Mo reo ve r, ev en if Dep ut y W in tl e

be cam e aware of cert ai n ot he r "i nd ic at or s" th at am ou nt ed to reas on ab le su sp ic io n fo r

hi m to be li ev e that Ma

rt ins w as in vo lv ed in dr ug tra ffi ck in g— e.g
., Mar ti ns 's "ag it at ed

a tt it ud e

. . . t hr ou gh ou t th e st op ," th e sl eep in g pa d in th e ba ck of Mar ti ns 's v e h i c l e
,

an d Kub o's reac ti on s, se e Tria l Tr. 25 —Dep ut y W in tl e di d no t be co m e aware of th es e

in di cat or s un ti l af

te r he st op pe d Mar ti ns

. The on ly po ss ib le ba si s f o r p u l l i n g ov er

Mar ti ns in th e fi r s t i n st an ce (o th er th an fo r th e al le ge d vi ol at io n of § 60 -3 99 (2 ),

whi ch we ha ve al read y reject ed ) was th at Mar ti ns ha d a Utah li cen se pl at e an d to ok

a cert ai n ex it of

f of I-8 0. The tra ffi c st op was th us
, fo r co ns ti tu ti on al pu rp os es
, ba se le ss

.

III. Co nc lu si on

Fo r th e reas on s se t fo rth ab ov e, we ho ld th at th e in it ia l tra ffi c st op v i o l a t ed

Mar ti ns 's Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s an d an y ev id en ce ob ta ined as a resu lt sh ou ld ha ve

be en su pp res se d. Acco rd in gl y
, we ne ed no t reac h th e se co nd an d th ird is su es t ha t

Mar ti ns rai se s on ap pe al pe rta in in g to th e can in e sn iff an d th e co nn ect io n be twee n th e

se iz ed cu rren cy

an d d ru g t raff

ic ki ng

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s re ve rs ed

.

RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge , di ss en ti ng

.

The co ur t un du ly co m

pl ic at es a st rai gh tfo rward cas e whi ch tu rn s on a si m pl e

qu es ti on : Co ul d a reas on ab le Neb ras ka la w e n f o r c e m en t of

fic er lo ok at a li cen se
pl at e wit h m or e th an ha lf of th e st at e na m e co nc eal ed an d co nc lu de th e “ le tt ers ” of 1 2

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d, as a m at te r of fact

, th e reco rd ph ot og rap hs of th e rear 1 2

of Mar ti ns ’s ve hi cl e, whi ch were “ ta ke n at a di rect an gl e, i.e.

, th e sa m e he ig ht as th e pl at e,” sh owe d th at th e rear -v ie w “ cam era ob sc ur e[d ] th e to p ha lf of th e na m e of th e
is su in g st at e: ‘U ta h’”—m ean in g “ [a]nyone vi ewin g th e li cen se pl at e, e.g

. , an y dr iv er

-2 4-th e s t a t e n a me w e r e no t “ cl ear an d di st in ct

. . . s o th at th ey [were ] pl ai nl y vi si bl e”?

Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 60 -3 99 (2 ). Of co ur se th e of fic er co ul d. The ex pe rie nc ed of fic er in

th is cas e—wi th ov er twen ty y ears pa tro ll in g fo r th e Dou gl as Co un ty, Neb ras ka

, Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t— th ou gh t so

. The m ag is tra te jud ge —wh o ha s m or e th an th ree

de c a de s of jud ic ia l se rv ic e at th e Neb ras ka st at e an d fed eral le ve ls —t ho ug ht so
, as

di d th e ex pe rie nc ed di st ric t jud ge

. I th in k so to o. Eve n Mar ti ns at th e ti m e of th e st op

to ld Dep ut y W in tl e “ he was aware of [th e li cen se pl at e] vi ol at io n, an d he ha d be en

st op pe d fo r it in th e pa st .” The se co nc lu si on s are ov erwh e l m in gl y su pp or te d by

pr eced en t fro m th is ci rcu it

, ot he r ci rcu it s, an d ot he r st at es
, in te rp ret in g si m il arl y 1 3 1 4 1 5

wor de d s ta tu te s.

The m ajor it y no t on ly de vi se s an un pr eced e nt ed in te rp ret at io n of § 60

-

39 9( 2) —a n i n te rp ret at io n I am co nf id en t th e Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t wil l reject

whe n gi ve n th e op po rtu ni ty—bu t de cree s th at th e co nt rary in te rp ret at io n ad op te d by

of an ot he r ve hi cl e, wou ld se e le ss th an ha lf th e le tt eri ng id en ti fy in g th e is su in g st at e.”

Mi nd fu l th at “ [o ]ne pi ct ur e can be wor th a th ou sa nd wor ds [,] [a]nd fewer wor ds are

so m et im es be tt er th an m an y ,” Uni te d St at es v. W al to n, 20 7 F.3 d 69 4, 69 9 (4 th Ci r.
20 00 ) (Wilk in so n, C.J

., co nc ur rin g)

, I ap pe nd two ph ot o g r a p hs of th e pl at e in

qu es ti on to al lo w th e read er to de te rm in e whe th er th e ob st ru ct io n of th e is su in g st at e
is as “ de m in im is ” as th e m ajor it y cla im s. An te at 1 1.

S e e, e.g
., Uni te d St at es v. Harri s, 61 7 F.3 d 97 7, 97 8- 79 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 0 ) 1 3
(d et erm in in g a Mi ss ou ri po li ce of fic er reas on ab ly in te rp ret ed a st at ut e re q u i r i n g
li cen se pl at es to be “ pl ai nl y vi si bl e” t o re qu ire m or e th an m ere r ead ab il it y ).

See, e.g
., Uni te d St at es v. Co nt rera s- Trev in o, 44 8 F.3 d 82 1, 82 4- 25 (5 th Ci r. 1 4

20 06 ) (h ol di ng a li cen se pl at e fram e “ th at co ve red th e to p ha lf of t h e [ s t a te na m e]”

ga ve o f f i c e r s p r ob ab le cau se to in it ia te a tra ffi c st op fo r vi ol at io n of a st at ut e

pr oh ib it in g o bjec ts th at “ al te r[] or o bs cu re[] th e le tt ers or n um be rs on th e p la te ”).

See, e.g
., Hin ojo sa v. St at e, 31 9 S.W .3d 25 8, 26 2 ( A r k. 20 09 ) (d eci di ng 1 5

of fic ers ha d pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e a l i c e n s e p la te fram e th at ob sc ur ed th e st at e

n a me, m ak in g th e pl at e m or e di ffi cu lt to read

, vi ol at ed a st at e la w req ui rin g t h a t

li cen se pl at es be “ cl earl y

vi si bl e”).

-2 5-th e ex pe rie nc ed Neb ras ka of fic er, m ag is tra te jud ge
, d i st ric t jud ge
, an d th is ci rcu it

jud ge is be y on d th e ob

jecti ve pa le of rea s o n

. Bel ie vi ng th e op po si te is tru e, I

res pe ct fu ll y

di ss en t.

A. Four th Am endment

“ Und er th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, a tra ffi c st op is reas on ab le if it is su pp or te d by

ei th er pr ob ab le cau se or an ar ticul ab le an d reas on ab le su sp ic io n th at a tra ffi c vi ol at io n

ha s oc cu rred .” Uni te d St at es v. W as hi ng to n, 45 5 F.3 d 82 4, 82 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ).

“ Arti cu la ti ng pr eci se ly wha t ‘reaso na bl e su sp ic io n’ an d ‘pro ba bl e cau se ’ m ean is no t

po ss i b l e

. The y are co m m on se ns e, no nt ech ni ca l co nc ep ti on s th at de al wit h ‘the

fact ua l an d pr act ic al co ns id erat io ns of ev eryday li fe on whi ch reas on ab le an d pr ud en t

m en
, no t le

ga l te ch ni ci an s , act .’ ” Orn el as v. Uni te d St at es
, 51 7 U.S. 69 0, 69 5 (1 99 6)

(em ph as is ad de d) (qu ot in g Il li no is v. Gat es , 46 2 U.S. 2 13 , 23 1 (1 98 3) ).

“ A la w en fo rcem en t of

fic er ha s reas on ab le su sp ic io n whe n th e of fic er is aware

of ‘part ic ul ari zed

, ob

jecti ve fact s whi ch

, ta ke n to ge th er wit h rat io na l in fere nc es fro m

th os e fact s, reas on ab ly warra nt su sp ic io n th at a cri m e is be in g co m m it te d.’” Uni te d

St at es v. Hou st on
, 54 8 F.3 d 11 51

, 11 53 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti n g U n i t e d S ta te s v.

Mar ti n, 70 6 F.2 d 26 3, 26 5 ( 8 t h C i r. 19 83 )). In rev ie win g reas on ab le su sp ic io n

de te rm in at io ns , th e Su pr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ns we m us t:

gi ve du e weig ht to in fere nc es dr awn fro m th os e fact s by re si de nt jud ge s

an d lo ca l law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers

.

Orn el as
, 51 7 U.S. at 69 9 (em ph as is ad de d)

. Rea so na bl e su sp ic io n to su pp or t a tra ffi c

st op req ui res far le ss ev id e n c e of gu il t th an “ ‘w ou ld jus ti fy co nd em na ti on ’ or

co nv ic ti on ,” Bri ne ga r v. Unit ed St at es
, 33 8 U.S. 16 0, 17 5 (1 94 9) (q uo ti ng Loc ke v.

Uni te d S ta te s, 1 1 U.S. (7 Cran ch ) 33 9, 3 48 (18 13 ) (Ma rs ha ll , C.J.))

.

“ The de te rm in at iv e qu es ti on is no t whe th er [Ma rti ns ] act ua ll y vi ol at ed [§ 60

-

39 9( 2) ], bu t whe th er an o b je c t iv el y reas on ab le po li ce of fic er co ul d ha ve fo rm ed a

-2 6-reas on ab le su sp ic io n th at [Ma rti ns ] was co m m it ti ng a [s ta tu to ry ] vi ol at io n.” Uni te d

St at es v. Mar ti n, 41 1 F.3 d 99 8, 10 01 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). “ Eve n if [Dep ut y W in tl e] was

m is ta ke n in co nc lu di ng th at a tra ffi c vi ol at io n oc cu rred

, th e st op do es no t vi ol at e th e

Fo ur th Am en dm en t if th e m is ta ke was an ‘objec ti ve ly r e a so na bl e on e.’” Uni te d

St at es v. Herre ra-Go nz al ez, 47 4 F.3 d 11 05

, 11 09 (8 th Ci r. 20 07) (q uo ti ng Mar ti n, 41 1

F.3 d a t 1 00 1)

.

Tho ug h th e m ajor it y co nc ed es “ we sh ou ld no t ex pe ct st at e hi gh way pa tro lm en

to in te rp ret th e tra ff

i c l a w s w i th th e su bt le ty an d ex pe rti se of a cri m in al de fen se

at to rn ey ,” an te at 12 (q uo ti ng Mar ti n, 41 1 F.3 d at 10 01 ) (in te rn al m ark s om it te d)

, th e

m ajor it y req ui res pr eci se ly th at —an d m or e. The m ajor it y ack no wled ge s “ [t]he

ob jecti ve st an da rd go ve rn in g an of fic er’s de ci si on to st op a m ot or is t pr ot ect s of fic ers

who ha ve a m is ta ke n be li ef th at a tra ffi c la w is be in g br ok en ,” id

. at 10 (ci ti ng Uni te d

St at es v

. S a n de rs
, 19 6 F.3 d 91 0, 91 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 )), y et co nc lu de s no t on ly th at

Dep ut y W in tl e m ad e a m is ta ke

, bu t th at “ Dep ut y W in tl e’s m is ta ke [was ] no t

ex cu sa bl e as a reas on ab le m is ta ke ” be cau se , in th e m ajor it y ’s vi ew, Mart in s’s p la te

was “ reas on ab ly read ab le ” or “ ge ne ral ly read ab le ” at so m e un sp eci fie d “ reas on ab le ”

di st an ce. Ant e at 11 -1 2. W it ho ut ex pl an at io n, th e m ajor it y reas su res us “ a gr eat de al

of fle xi bi li ty rem ai ns wit hi n wh ic h a n o ffi cer m ig ht reas on ab ly st op a car un de r th e

au th or it y of § 60 -3 99 (2 )”—

jus t n ot in th is cas e. Ant e at 12 n.3

.

If of fic ers ret ai n “a gr eat de al of fle xi bi li ty” in de te rm in in g whe th er an

ob st ru ct ed pl at e vi ol at es th e st at ut e, su rel y an ex pe rie nc ed of fic er who was un ab le to

read il y id en ti f

y th e pl at e as Mar ti ns pa ss ed hi m on th e in te rs ta te ha d a reas on ab le

ba si s to be li ev e th e na m e of th e is su in g st at e was su ffi ci en tl y ob st ru ct ed to no lo ng er

be “ cl ear an d di st in ct ” a n d “p l a i n l y vi si bl e” as req ui red by § 60 -3 99 (2 ), ev en if a

m ajor it y of th is pa ne l la te r fin ds th ere was no vi ol at io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Sm art

, 39 3 F.3d 76 7, 77 1 (8t h Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ The po ss ib il it y th at th ere was no vi ol at io n, and

th e su bs eq ue nt d et erm in at io n th at th ere was no t, do es no t m ean th at th e in it ia l

su sp ic io n was un reas on ab le .”).

-2 7-The m ajor it y ’s an al y si s su ffer s fro m th ree m ai n fla ws: fir st

, th e m ajor it y is to o

qu ic k to reject th e d is tri ct co ur t’s h arm on iz at io n of Dep ut y W in tl e’s te st im on y , s ee

And ers on v. Ci ty of Bes se m er Ci ty, 47 0 U.S. 56 4, 57 3 -7 4 (1 98 5) (“ If th e di st ric t

co ur t’s acco un t of th e ev id en ce is pl au si b l e i n l i g h t of th e reco rd vi ewed in it s

en t i r e t y, t h e co ur t of ap pe al s m ay no t rev ers e it ev en th ou gh co nv in ced th at ha d it

be en si t t in g as th e tri er of fact

, it wou ld ha ve weig he d th e ev id en ce di ffer en tl y .”

(em ph as is ad de d) ); se co nd

, th e m ajor it y ’s in te rp ret at io n of § 60 -3 99 (2 ) do es no t gi ve

th e st at ut e it s pl ai n an d or di na ry m ean in g as req ui red by Neb ras ka la w; an d th ird

, th e

m ajor it y ’s op in io n l eav es no roo m for reas on ab le m is ta ke s.

B. Deputy Wi ntl e’s Tes timony

Afte r rev ie win g Dep ut y W in tl e’s he ari ng te st im on y an d ob se rv in g hi m te st ify

at tr i a l

, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d Dep ut y W in tl e cred ib le an d fo un d “ no m at eri al

di sc rep an ci es ” be twee n hi s s u p p res si on he ari ng an d tri al te st im on ie s. Des pi te

ack no wled gi ng “ th at ‘[w] he re th ere are two pe rm is si bl e vi ews o f t h e e v i de nc e, th e

fa c t f i n de r’s ch oi ce be twee n th em can no t be cl earl y erro ne ou s,’” th e m ajor it y

“ di sa gr ee[s ]” wit h th e di st ric t co ur t, fin di ng Dep ut y W in tl e’s te st im on y “ at tri al th at

he co ul d read Mar ti ns ’s li cen se pl at e” ren de red th e di s t r i c t c o u rt’s fact ua l fin di ng s

reg ard in g th e pl at e cl earl y erro ne ou s. Ant e at 8, 9, 17 n.9 (q uo ti ng And ers on
, 47 0

U.S. at 57 4)

. The m ajor it y t h e n “ac c e p t[s ] as tru e th e fact s as de sc rib ed in Dep ut y

W in tl e’s la te r-g iv en tri al te st im on y

. . . , i.e., th at Dep ut y W in tl e was ab le to read th e

is su in g st at e’s na m e on Mar ti ns ’s li cen se pl at e fro m wit hi n 10 0 feet whi le tra ve li ng

on I-8 0.” Ant e at 9- 10

. Alt ho ug h I su gg es t th e m ajor it y ’s fact ua l an al y si s “ ov ers te ps

th e bo un ds ” of ou r du ty as an ap pe ll at e co ur t rev ie win g fo r cl ear erro r, And ers on
, 47 0

U.S. at 57 3 (“ The rev ie win g co ur t ov ers te ps th e bo un ds of it s du ty un de r Ru le 52 (a)

if it un de rta ke s to du pl ic at e th e ro le of th e lo wer co ur t.”) ; se e al so Zen it h Rad io Co rp

.

v. Hazel ti ne Res earc h, In c., 39 5 U.S. 10 0, 12 3 (1 96 9) (“ In ap pl y in g th e cl earl y

erro ne ou s st an da rd to th e fin di ng s of a di st ric t co ur t si tt in g wit ho ut a jury, ap pe ll at e

co ur ts m us t co ns ta nt ly ha ve in m in d th at th ei r fu nc ti on is no t to de ci de fa ct ua l is su es

de no vo .” (em

ph as is ad de d) ), th e m ajor it y a l s o read s to o m uc h in to th is on e ph ras e

fro m Depu ty W in tl e’s tr ia l t es ti m on y

.

-2 8-At tri al

, Dep ut y Wi n t l e t e s t i f i e d he di d no t “ be li ev e [h e] act ua ll y dr ov e u p

be si de [Ma rti ns ] bu t cam e wi th in a hu nd re d feet of [Ma rti ns ] to se e th e pl at e.”

(Em ph as is ad de d)

. Eve n if we as su m e th e sl ig ht di ffer en ces be twee n Dep ut y W int le ’ s

te st im on ie s req ui red th e di st ric t co ur t to ba se it s fact ua l fin di ng s on ly on on e ph ras e

in Depu ty W in tl e’s tri al te st im on y
, th at te st im on y can no t b ear t he lo ad th e m ajor it y
pl aces on it be cau se it do es no t e s t a b l i s h e xa ct ly ho w cl os e to th e ve hi cl e Dep ut y

W in tl e ha d to ge t to read th e pl at e. The m ajor it y de ci de s th e pl at e was “ read ab le fro m

10 0 feet ,” ev en “ no t[i ng ] th at 10 0 feet is ap pr ox im at el y si x to se ve n av erag e ve hi cl e

le ng th s, an d th is sp aci ng do es no t req ui re Dep ut y W in tl e to ta il ga te Mar ti ns or fo ll ow

hi m at an un sa fe di st an ce to as cert ai n th e is su in g st at e’s na m e on Mar ti ns ’s l i c en se
pl at e.” Ant e at 11 , 13 n.4 , 15

.

Bu t no ne of th at fact fin di ng is in th e reco rd

. Dep ut y W in tl e te st ifi ed in co nt ex t

th at he “ acce le rat ed up an d dr ov e up cl os e to [Ma rti ns ]” an d “ ha d to ge t cl os e to th e

ve hi cl e be fo re [ h e] co ul d act ua ll y se e wha t st at e th e ve hi cl e was fro m ” bu t no t so

cl os e as to “ act ua ll y dr [i]ve up be si de [Mar ti ns ]. ” (Em ph as is ad de d) . Bey on d t ha t,

Dep ut y W in tl e’s te st im on y do es no t sp eci fic al ly sa y ho w cl os e wi th in th e ra ng e of

th at “ 10 0- fo ot di st an ce” Dep ut y W in tl e ha d to ge t to Mar ti ns ’s ve hi cl e to de ci ph er th e

ob st ru ct ed na m e of th e is su in g st at e. Ant e at 13 n.4

. Cri ti cal ly, th e vi de o reco rd in g

of th e tra ffi c st op in di cat es Dep ut y W in tl e di d no t id en ti fy Mar ti ns ’s li cen se pl at e to

th e di sp at ch er un ti l Mar ti n s h a d e x it ed th e in te rs ta te an d bo th ve hi cl es were ne arl y

st op pe d on th e sh ou ld er. At th at po in t, Dep ut y W in tl e was no m or e th an on e or two

“ av erag e ve hi cl e le ng th s” fro m Mar ti ns ’s li cen se pl at e whe n he id en ti fie d Utah as th e

is su in g s ta te —a s ho rt d is ta nc e well “ wit hi n 10 0 feet of Mar ti ns ’s ve hi cl e.” Ant e at

8. Th e vi de o fu ll y su pp or ts Dep ut y W in tl e’s te st im on y th at he “ ne ve r real ly g[ o]t

cl os e en ou gh to [Ma rti ns ’s ve hi cl e to se e th e pl at e cl earl y ] un ti l th e fin al tra ffi c st op .”

The se ke y un di sp ut ed reco rd fact s, ig no red by th e m ajor it y
, m ean th e di st ric t co ur t’s

fin di ng s are at th e ve ry le as t pl au si bl e

. And th at is al l we can as k fo r on ap pe al

. See

And ers on , 47 0 U.S. at 57 3- 74

.

-2 9-C. Pla in Mea ni ng of § 60 -3 99 (2 )

Sect io n 60 -3 99 (2 ) req ui res “ [a]ll le tt ers
, nu m be rs
, pr in ti ng
, writ in g, an d ot he r

id en ti fic at io n m ark s” on a li cen se pl at e “ be ke pt cl ear an d di st in ct

. . . so th at th ey

sh al l be pl ai nl y vi si bl e at al l ti m es .” As sh ou ld be cl ear fro m th e m ajor it y op in io n,

th e Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t ha s no t in te rp ret ed § 60 -3 99 (2 ), an d th e few lo wer co ur t

cas es co ns id eri ng rel at ed is su es ha ve no t ex am in ed th e st at ut or y la ng ua ge at is su e in

th is cas e. See, e.g
., an te at 14 n.6

, 16 n.8 (ex pl ai ni ng th at two of th e th ree Neb ras ka

cas es th e m ajor it y ci te s in co ns tru in g § 60 -3 99 in vo lv ed a di ffer en t st at ut or y sc he m e

th at on ly req ui red m ot or is ts to “ di sp la y ” th e li cen se pl at es an d th at th e co ur t in St at e

v. Rei te r, 52 4 N.W .2d 57 5, 57 8 (Neb

. Ct

. App

. 19 94 )

, “d i d no t el ab or at e on wha t,

ex act ly, ‘vis ib le ’” m ean t as us ed in th e op in io n bu t no t in t he st at ut e). Und er

Neb ras ka la w, “ st at ut or y la ng ua ge is to be gi ve n it s pl ai n an d or di na ry m ean in g, an d

an ap pe ll at e co ur t wil l no t res or t to in te rp ret at io n to as cert ai n th e m ean in g of st at ut or y

wor ds whi ch are p la in , di rect , and un am bi gu ou s.” St at e v . Sik es , 8 34 N.W .2d 60 9,

61 4 (Neb

. 20 13 ). The pl a i n a n d o r d in ary m ean in g of th e op erat iv e te rm s in § 60

-

39 9( 2) de m on st rat es Dep ut y W in tl e ha d an ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le ba si s fo r th e st op

.

Defi ni ti on s of th e te rm “ cl ear” in cl ud e “ eas il y vi si bl e or di st in gu is ha bl e” an d

“ free fro m ob st ru ct io n, bu rd en
, li m it at io n, de fect

, or ot he r res tri ct in g f e at ur es .”

W eb ster’s Thi rd New In te rn at io na l Dict io na ry 41 9 (1 99 3)

. The te rm “ di st in ct ” m ea ns

“ cap ab le of be in g eas il y pe rcei ve d ” an d “ read il y se en

. . . th ro ug h sh arp
, cl ear,

un m is ta ka bl e im

pr es si on : no t bl ur red

, o b sc ur ed

, or in de fin it e.” Id

. at 65 9.

Defi ni ti on s of th e te rm “ pl ai nl y ” i n c l u d e “ wit h cl ari ty of pe rcep ti on or

co m pr eh en si on ,” “ cl earl y ,” “ in un m is ta ka bl e te rm s,” an d “ in a pl ai n m an ne r.” Id

. at

17 29

. And “ vi si bl e” m ean s “ eas il y se en ” an d “ co ns pi cu ou s.” Id

. at 25 57

. Mar ti ns ’s

pl at e d oe s n ot read il y

fit th es e d efi ni ti on s.

Co ns tru in g so m e of th e sa m e st at ut o r y t e r ms
, th e W y om in g Su pr em e Co ur t,

whi ch th e Neb ras ka Su pr e me C o u rt ha s lo ng co ns ul te d in m at te rs of st at ut or y

in te rp ret at io n, se e, e.g
., Su ll iv an v. St or z, 55 N.W .2 d 49 9, 50 2 (Neb

. 19 52 ) (ci ti ng

And ers on v. Eng le h art

, 10 5 P. 57 1, 57 5 (Wy o. 19 09 )), rece nt ly he ld “ [t]he

-3 0-req ui rem en ts th at a li cen se pl at e be ‘pla in ly vi si bl e’ an d ‘clear ly le gi bl e’ in di cat e th at

a li cen se pl at e m

us t no t be ob st ru ct ed in an y man ne r .” Park s v. St at e, 24 7 P.3 d 85 7,

86 0 (Wy o. 20 11 ) (em

ph as is ad de d)

. Th e c o u rt reas on ed

, “ Thi s in te rp ret at io n is in

acco rd wit h th e pu rp os e of th e st at ut e. Lice ns e pl at es ne ed to be eas il y read in or de r

to faci li ta te la w en fo rcemen t an d or di na ry ci ti zen s in rep or ti ng an d in ve st ig at in g

hi t-a nd -ru n acci de nt s, tra ffi c vi o l a t i o ns
, ga s- pu m p dr iv e of

fs

, an d ot he r cri m in al

act iv it y .” Id

.

A Cal ifo rn ia ap pe al s co ur t reac he d th e sa m e co nc lu s i on
, ho ld in g si m il ar

st at ut or y la ng ua ge in di cat ed th e le gi sl at ur e in te nd ed “ th e vi ew of th e li cen se pl at e be

en ti re ly un ob st ru ct ed .” Peo pl e v. W hi te , 1 13 Cal . Rpt r. 2d 58 4, 58 6 (Cal . C t. App

. 20 01 ) (em

ph as is ad de d)

. The co ur t de te rmi n e d t h e le gi sl at ur e, by us in g th e

un am bi gu ou s ph ras e “ cl earl y vi si bl e,” “ m ean t a li cen se pl at e m us t no t be ob st ru ct ed

in an y man ne r an d m

us t be en ti re ly read ab le .” Id

. (em ph as is ad de d)

. Thi s rat io na le

is pe rs ua si ve an d st ro ng ly su gg es ts th e Neb ras ka le gi sl at ur e i n t e n d ed to pr oh ib it

ob st ru ct in g l i c e ns e pl at e le tt eri ng in an y m an ne r an d ev en to a m in or de gr ee. Pu t 1 6

The m ajor it y ’s bri ef an al y si s o f th e u np ub li sh ed op in io n i n St at e v. O’ Dell

, 1 6

No. A-0 1- 12 74

, 20 02 W L 31 10 75 78

, at *6 (Neb

. Ct

. App

. Sep t. 24

, 20 02 ) (u np u b l i s h e d )

, d oe s no t pe rs ua de m e ot he rwis e. Ant e at 16 & n.8

. As th e O’ Dell

co ur t no te d

, t h e s t at ut e at is su e in th at cas e cri m in al iz ed th e “ im pr op er di sp la y ” of

li cen se pl at es an d sa id no th in g ab ou t th e “ pr op er di sp la y ” of pl at es or an y th in g

rem ot el y rel at ed to th e pr es en t req ui rem en t (s in ce 20 05 ) th at a pl at e b e “cl e ar an d

di st in ct ” so as to be “ pl ai nl y vi si bl e.” Id

. The O’ Dell co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at in

im pl y in g th at th e “ pr op er di sp la y ” of pl at es req u i r e d a p l a te th at was “ vi si bl e,” th e
Rei te r pa ne l “ bo ot st rap [p ed ] a ho ld ing fr om sta tu to ry la ng ua ge whi ch d[ id ] no t ex is t.”

Id

. The O’ Dell co ur t he ld

, “ Thu s, to th e ex te nt th at [Rei te r] ho ld s o r su gg es ts th at

th ere is a cri m e of ‘im

pr op er di sp la y ’ of pl at es if a la w en fo rcem en t of fic er can no t se e
10 0 per cen t of th e pl at e, we di sa gr ee wit h Reit er. It th eref or e lo gi cal ly fo ll ows th at

an of fic er st op pi ng a ve hi cl e fo r th e reas on th at a tra il er hi tc h pa rti al ly in te rfer es wit h

hi s or he r vi ew of a n u mb e r o n a rear li cen se pl at e is act in g wit ho ut le ga l au th or it y

an d s to pp in g a cit iz en for a cri m e whi ch do es no t ex is t.” Id . O’ Dell is in ap po si te

.

-3 1-si m

pl y
, a pa rti al ly ob st ru ct ed pl at e i s n o t “cl ear an d di st in ct ” so as to be “ pl ai nl y

vi si bl e.”

Here, th ere is no re al que st io n bu t th at th e rear -v ie w cam era pa rti al ly ob st ru ct ed

th e le tt eri ng on Mar ti ns ’s pl at e. Giv en th e br ead th of th e pl ai n la ng ua ge in § 60

-

39 9( 2 ) a n d t he “ gr eat de al of fle xi bi li ty” affo rd ed to of fic ers in th e fie ld

, an

ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le of

fic er co ul d co nc lu de Mar ti ns ’s ad m it te dl y ob st ru ct ed pl at e

was no t “ cl ear an d di st in ct ” so as to be “ pl ai nl y vi si bl e” as req ui red by th e ap pl ic ab le

Neb ras ka law n ow.

The m ajor it y fin ds th is co m m on se ns e in te rp ret at io n ob jecti ve ly un reas on ab le

an d th eref

or e th e st op un co ns ti tu ti on al

, bu t Depu ty W in tl e an d th e di st ric t co ur t are

far fro m al on e in co ns tru in g th e di sp la y st at ut e th at way

. The re is am pl e au th or it y

fin di n g a reas on ab le ba si s fo r si m il ar st op s un de r st rik in gl y si m il ar ci rcu m st an ces

. See, e.g
., Uni te d St at es v. Bo y d, 38 8 F. App ’x 94 3, 94 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (u np ub li sh ed

pe r cu ria m ) (h ol di ng th at a li cen se p l a t e f ram e ob sc ur in g th e reg is tra ti on de cal

pr ov id ed an of

fic er pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e a m ot or is t vi ol at ed a st at e la w req ui rin g

“ ‘all le tt ers
, nu m eral s, pr in ti ng
, writ in g
, a n d o t h e r id en ti fic at io n m ark s’

. . . to be

‘clear an d di st in ct

. . . s o t h a t t h ey wil l be pl ai nl y vi si bl e an d le gi bl e’” q uo ti ng Fl a.

St at

. § 31 6.6 05 (1 )); Uni te d St at es v. Mo nt es -Hern an de z, 35 0 F. App ’x 86 2, 86 8 (5 th

Ci r. 20 09 ) (u np ub li sh ed pe r cu ria m ) (s im il ar); Dav is v. Nov y
, 43 3 F.3 d 92 6, 92 8, 93 0

(7 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (s am e); Uni te d St at es v. Arci ga -Bu st am an te

, 27 6 F. App ’x 71 6, 71 7,

71 9- 20 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (u np ub li sh ed ) (s am e); Uni te d St at es v. Varg as
, 57 F. App ’x

39 4, 39 6- 98 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 03 ) ( u n p u b l i s he d) (s am e); Uni te d St at es v. W al to n, No.

1: 03 –0 00 14 , 20 04 W L 3 46 08 42 , a t *4 (M.D. Ten n. Nov . 12 , 20 04 ) (s am e); Nels on

v. St at e, 54 4 S .E.2d 18 9, 1 90 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 01 ) (s am e).

In r e jecti ng th e di st ric t co ur t’s reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n of § 60 -3 99 (2 ), th e

m ajor it y tu rn s th e l o g i c of th es e cas es up si de do wn. Rat he r th an gi ve th e te rm s

“ cl ear” an d “ di st in ct ” th ei r pl ai n m ean in g, th e m ajor it y ig no res th os e cl ear te rm s. The

-3 2-m ajor it y red uc e s th e br oa d, de sc rip ti ve ph ras es “ cl ear an d di st in ct ” an d “ pl ai nl y

vi si bl e” to va gu e va ria ti on s of th e so li ta ry te rm “ read ab le .” Ant e at 11 -1 2. The 1 7

Neb ras ka le gi sl at ur e di d no t ch oo se th e read il y av ai la bl e te rm “ read ab le ,” a te rm wit h

a di ffer en t an d na rro wer m ean in g th an “ cl ear an d di st in ct ” an d “ pl ai nl y vi si bl e at al l

ti m es .” W hi le it m ak es se ns e to co ns id er read ab il it y in de te rm in in g whe th er a li cen se
pl at e vi ol at es § 60 -3 99 (2 ), gi ve n it s pu rp os e, no th in g i n th e un am bi gu ou s st at ut or y

la ng ua ge su pp or ts m ak in g s im pl e rea da bi li ty the de te rm in at iv e fac to r.

In de ed

, Mar ti ns hi m se lf, rel y in g o n Rei te r—t he sa m e cas e as th e

m ajor it y —re ach es th e op po si te co nc lu si on of th e m ajor it y
, as se rti ng “ Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 60 -3 99 (2 ) do es no t m an da te th at a pl at e be ‘clear ly vi si bl e’ or ‘reada bl e.’” It als o

do es no t fo ll ow th at a pl at e th at is “ read ab le ” is au to m at ic al ly “ cl ear an d di st in ct ” an d

“ pl ai nl y vi si bl e.” See, e.g
., Peo pl e v. Dun can
, 73 Cal

. Rp tr. 3d 26 4, 26 8 (Cal

. Ct

. App . 2 00 8) (co nc lu di ng a pl at e m ou nt ed up si de do wn— th ou g h r e a d ab le —was no t

“ cl earl y le gi bl e” or eas il y read ab le be cau se m ou nt in g th e pl at e up si de do wn m ad e

“ th e p la te m or e d iff

ic ul t o r co nf

us in g t o re ad ”).

W e ha ve pr ev io us ly reject ed th e su gg es ti on th at an of fic er’s ab il it y “ to read [a]

pl at e whi le fo ll owi ng ” a ve hi cl e m ean t “ th ere was no vi ol at io n of [lo cal la w s

req ui rin g th e pl at e be ‘pla in ly vi si bl e’] an d th us no pr ob ab le cau se fo r th e s t o p .”

Harri s, 6 17 F.3d at 9 78 . In Harr is , we con cl ud ed th e tr affi c st op di d n ot vi ol at e th e

Fo ur th Am en dm en t be cau se
, as in th e pr es en t cas e, (1 ) “ th e di st ric t co ur t be li ev ed th e

of fic er’s te st im on y th at th e li cen se pl at e was no t pl ai nl y vi si bl e, ” ( 2) th at

“ de te rm in at io n, ba se d on cred ib il it y
, [was ] no t cl earl y erro ne ou s,” an d (3 ) “ [t]he

of fic er’s co nc lu si on

. . . wa s ob jecti ve ly rea so na bl e, as i t c o m pl ie [d ] wit h Mi ss ou ri

de ci si on s in te rp ret in g a si m il arl y -wo rd ed st at e st at ut e.” Id

. at 97 9. W e sh ou ld fo ll ow

I ha ve li tt le do ub t of

fic ers in th e fie ld wil l st ru g g l e t o d et erm in e wha t th e 1 7

m ajor it y m ean s by “ reas on ab ly read ab le ” or “g e n e ral ly read ab le

. . . fro m wit hi n a

reas on ab le di st an ce.” An te at 1 1- 12

.

-3 3-ou r ex is ti ng pr eced en t an d reac h th e sa m e res ul t he re. See Owsl ey v. Lue bb ers
, 28 1 1 8

F.3 d 68 7, 69 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (p er cu ria m ) (“ It is a card in al ru le in ou r ci rcu it th at on e

pa ne l i s b ou nd by the de ci si on of a pri or pa ne l.”)

.

Des pi te th e rem ark ab le si m il ari ti es be twee n Harri s an d th is cas e, th e m ajor it y

at te m pt s to di st in gu is h th e cas e, “ di ffe r e n t i a t[i ng ] be twee n a pl at e so ob sc ur ed th at

an of fic er” “ ha d to ge t ri

gh t up on th e veh ic le to ge t th e li cen se pl at e ” an d Mar ti ns ’s

ad m it te dl y ob st ru ct ed pl at e. Ant e at 15 (q uo ti ng Harri s, 61 7 F.3 d at 9 7 8 ) ( in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Bu t Depu ty W in tl e’s tri al te st im on y
, acce pt ed as tru e b y

th e m ajor it y
, an te at 9, in di cat ed Dep ut y W in tl e “ ha d to ge t cl os e to th e veh ic le be fo re
[h e] co ul d act ua ll y se e wha t st at e th e ve hi cl e was fro m ” be cau se th e “ cam era m ou nt ed

to th e to p o f t h e p l a t e

. . . was ob st ru ct in g th e pl at e.” (Em ph as is ad de d)

. The re is

si m pl y no m at eri al di ffer en ce be twee n “ ge t [ t i n g ] rig ht up on th e ve hi cl e” in Harri s

an d “ ge t[t in g] cl os e to th e ve hi cl e” h ere. Th eref or e, Harri s sh ou ld co nt ro l th is cas e

un de r th e sa m e “ pr act ic al an d o bjec ti ve ly reaso na bl e st an da rd .” Ant e at 15

.

To ad op t th e m ajor it y ’s reas on in g, “ ‘one m us t ad d wor ds to th e st at ut e t h a t

si m pl y are no t th ere.’” St a t e v

. M a g al la ne s, 82 4 N.W .2d 69 6, 70 1 (Neb

. 20 12 ) 1 9

( q u o t i ng St at e v. Med in a, No. A-1 1- 37 7, 20 11 W L 25 77 26 8, at *3 (Neb

. Ct

. App

.
Ju ne 28

, 20 11 ) (u np ub li sh ed )). Thi s we sh ou ld no t do

. See Loz ie r Co rp

. v. Dou gl as

Cn ty. Bd

. of Equ al iz at io n, 82 9 N.W .2d 65 2, 65 6 (Ne b

. 2 01 3) (“ W e gi ve st at ut or y

The ab se nc e of a de fin it iv e in te rp ret at io n of § 60

- 39 9( 2) by th e Neb ras ka 1 8

co ur ts do es no t dep riv e Dep ut y W in tl e’s in te rp ret at io n of ob jecti ve reas on ab le ne ss
, pa rti cu la rly gi ve n th e a u t h o r i ty ap pl y in g si m il ar st at e st at ut es th e sa m e way

. See

Uni te d St at es v. Co le m an
, 70 0 F.3 d 32 9, 33 4- 35 (8 t h C i r. 20 12 ) (“ Co ns id eri ng th e

pr eced en t at th e t i me of th e st op [in cl ud in g th e la ck of au th or it at iv e in te rp ret at io n
fro m th e Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t], [th e of fic er] ha d an ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le ba si s
fo r be li ev in g [t he m ot or is t] vi ol at ed th e st at ut e.”).

The m ajor it y ’s rel ia nc e on Rei te r is pr ob le m at ic fo r th e sa m e reas on

. As 1 9

no te d ab ov e, th e O’ Dell co ur t cri ti ci zed R e i t er fo r “ bo ot st rap [in g] a ho ld in g fro m

st at ut or y lan gu ag e whi ch d[i d] no t ex is t.” O’Dell , 20 02 W L 31 10 75 78 , at * 6.

-3 4-la ng ua ge it s pl ai n an d or di na ry m ean in g, an d we wil l no t read in to a st at ut e a m ean in g

th at is no t t he re.”) (fo ot no te om it te d)

.

D. Obje cti ve ly Reas on ab le Offi cer

Eve n if th e ex pe rie nc ed lo wer co ur t jud ge s an d I ar e w r on g ab ou t ho w th e

Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t wou ld in te rp ret § 60 -3 99 (2 ), se e Sm art

, 39 3 F.3 d at 77 1, at

le as t ou r reas on in g il lu st rat es th e m ean in g of th e st at ut e was su ffi ci en tl y un cert ai n to

m ak e Dep ut y W in tl e’s in te rp ret at io n reas on ab le

. See Uni te d S t a t es v.

Ro dr ig ue z-Lo pe z, 44 4 F.3 d 10 20

, 10 22 -2 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ Fo rtu na te ly, we ne ed no t

de ci de th is is su e [o f st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n] be cau se th e res ol ut io n of th e cas e tu rn s

up on whe th er [th e of

fic er’s] be li ef th at th e st at ut e was vi ol at ed was ob jecti ve ly

reas on ab le no t whe th er it was in fact v i o l a t e d

. ” ). W ha te ve r th e co rrec tn es s of th e

m ajor it y ’s st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n, Dep ut y Wi n t l e di d no t ha ve th e be ne fit of th at

in te rp ret at io n— or an y gu id an ce fro m th e Neb ras ka co ur ts on th e st at ut e at is su e—a t

th e ti m e of th e st op

. See W as hi ng to n, 45 5 F.3 d at 82 7 (ex pl a i n i n g p r i o r jud ic ia l

in te rp ret at io ns of a st at ut e are “ rel ev an t to th e ob jecti ve reas on ab l e ne ss of th e

of fic er’s b el ie f”).

The real qu es ti on at th is st ag e is no t whe t h e r D e pu ty W in tl e erre d in

in te rp ret in g th e st at ut e an d be li ev in g he ha d a reas on ab le ba si s fo r th e st op
, bu t

whe th er Dep ut y W in tl e so ob vi ou sl y erre d th at no ob jecti ve ly reas on ab l e o f

f i cer

co ul d hav e reac he d th at co nc lu si on at th e ti m e of th e st op

. The Fo ur th Am en dm en t

al lo ws ro om fo r reas on ab le m is ta ke s in de te rm in in g whe th er a m ot or is t ha s vi ol at ed

a tra ffi c la w. Mar ti n, 41 1 F.3 d at 10 02

. (“ [A] m is un de rs t a n d i n g of tra ffi c la ws, if

reas on ab le

, ne ed no t in va li da te a st op m ad e on th at ba si s.”)

. And we ro ut in el y up ho ld

tra ffi c st op s whe re “ an e x p e rt de fen se at to rn ey
, an d ev en a fed eral jud ge [o r two ],

ul ti m at el y m ig ht co nc lu de th at th e plain la ngua ge of th e [s ta tu te ] te ch ni cal ly req ui res ”

a di ffer en t le ga l co nc lu si on th an th at reac he d by th e of fic er in th e fie ld

. Id

. at 10 01

-

02 (d eci di ng a tra ffi c la w’ s “ le ve l of cl ari ty [fel l] sh or t of th at req ui red to de cl are [th e

of fic er’s] be li ef an d act io ns ob jecti ve ly un reas on ab le ”); se e al so
, e.g
., Uni te d St at es

-3 5-v. Has ti ng s, 68 5 F.3 d 72 4, 72 7- 28 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (d ecl in in g to de te rm in e whe th er a

m ot or is t’s co nd uc t “ in fact ” vi ol at ed st at e la w “ be cau se it was ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

fo r [th e of fic er] to co nc lu de th at it ” di d) ; San de rs
, 19 6 F.3 d at 91 3 (ref us in g “ to pa rs e

t h e w o r d s of [a] st at ut e in de te rm in in g whe th er [th e of fic er] ha d pr ob ab le cau se t o

st op th e ve hi cl e” be cau se th e of fic er ha d an ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le ba si s fo r be li ev in g

th e m ot or is t br each ed a tra ffi c la w reg ard le ss of whe th er an act ua l vi ol at io n ex is te d)

. It i s n ot cle ar t o m e why the m ajor it y alt ers ou r us ua l p ract ic e in th is cas e.

Und er th e m ajor it y ’s ho ld in g, Dep ut y W in tl e co ul d on ly ha ve av oi de d ru nn in g

a f o u l of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t if he ha d accu rat el y pr ed ic te d th e m ajor it y ’s

in te rp ret at io n of th e st at ut e an d br ok en of f pu rs ui t on ce he was ab le to read Mar ti ns ’s

pl at e wit hi n so m e un sp eci fie d “ rea s o n a bl e di st an ce.” Ant e at 12

. The Fo ur th

Am en dm en t d oe s n ot req ui re o ffi cers to ha ve su ch a te ch ni cal un de rs ta nd in g o f th e

tra ffi c co de

. See Orn el as
, 51 7 U.S. at 69 5. Yet th e m ajor it y req ui res Dep ut y W in tl e

to un de rs ta nd § 6 0- 39 9( 2) in a way m os t ac co m

pl is he d ju ris ts ha ve no t.

E. Con cl us io n

If ot he r fed eral an d st at e co ur ts co ns is te nt ly reac h di ffer en t co nc lu si on s fro m

t h e maj or it y ’s op in io n he re as to th e m ean in g of th e sa m e or si m il arl y wor de d

st at ut es
, ho w can th is co ur t fau lt Dep ut y W in tl e fo r fai li ng to an ti ci pa te th e m ajor it y ’s

u n i q u e i n t e rp ret at io n of § 60 -3 99 (2 )? I do no t fau lt Dep ut y W in tl e fo r hi s la ck of

ps y ch ic sk il l.

Bas ed on th e pl ai n m ean in g of § 60 -3 99 (2 ) an d Dep ut y W in tl e’s fie ld

ob se rv at io ns of Mar ti ns ’s ad m it te dl y ob st ru ct ed pl at e, as do cu m en te d o n th e vi de o

r e c o r d in g of th e st op an d th e at ta ch ed reco rd ph ot og rap hs of Mar ti ns ’s ve hi cl e
, I

ag ree wit h th e di s t r i c t c ou rt th at Dep ut y W in tl e ha d a reas on ab le ba si s to be li ev e

Mar ti ns ’s pl at e was no t “ cl ear a nd di st in ct ” so as to be “ pl ai nl y vi si bl e” as req ui red

by Neb ras ka la w. Eve n ass um in g th e pl at e were “ no t te ch ni cal ly in vi ol at io n of the

st at ut e,” San de rs
, 19 6 F.3 d at 9 1 3

, D e p ut y W in tl e’s “ m is ta ke was an ‘objec ti ve ly

-3 6-reas on ab le on e.’” Herre ra-Go nz al ez, 47 4 F.3 d at 11 09 (q uo ti ng Mar ti n, 41 1 F.3 d at

10 01 ). The tra ffi c st op di d no t vi ol at e th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, an d Mar ti ns ’s

rem ai ni ng arg um en ts are wi th ou t m eri t. I wo ul d a ffi rm

.

-3 7-APPENDIX TO T HE DI SSENT OF RILE Y, C.J.

Pla in tif f’s Ex hi bi t 2

Pla in tif f’s Ex hi bi t 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3 8-