1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49965

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

MATTHEW ANDRE ARAGON ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: May 8, 2023
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Minidoka County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction for felony possession of a c ontrolled substance
, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Justin R. Porter , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ BRAILSFORD, Judge Matthew Andre Aragon appeals from his judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(c)(1). Aragon argues the district court erred in denying his mo tion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop . We affirm

. I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Aragon does not contest t he district court’s factual findings. Those findings show that

w hile surveilling a suspected drug house, officers observed a vehicle leave the house. Some of the
officers followed the vehicle , which stopped at a gas station to refuel. When leaving the g as station, the vehicle turn ed into the closest lane , which was a terminating, right

- turn la ne. Next, the vehicle changed lanes without signaling to merge onto the highway . Detective Murphy observed the failure to signal a nd alerted another officer, who initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle , which Aragon was driving . During the course of the stop, drugs and paraphernalia were located in the
vehicle.2

The State charged Aragon with felony possession of a controlled substance , I.C. § 37

- 2732(c)(1) , and misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance , I.C. § 37

- 2732(c)(3)

. Aragon filed a motion to suppress, arguing the officers did not have reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. At the evidentiary hearing, Detec tive Murphy and th e officer who initiated the stop testified. The district court denied Aragon’s suppression motion
, concluding that he had changed traffic lanes without signaling in violation of I.C. § 49

- 808(1) and that Detective Murphy’s observation
of th is violation cr eated reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop

. T he court rejected Aragon’s
contention that the first lane’s markings were ambiguous and that, due to this ambiguity, he could not comply with I.C. § 49

- 808(1)

. Subsequently, Aragon entered a conditi onal guilty plea to felony possession of a controlled substance and reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his suppression motion. Aragon timely appeals.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review of a suppression motion is bifurc ated. When a decision on a motion to suppress is challenged, we accept the trial court’s findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence, but we freely review the application of constitutional principles to the facts
as found. State v. Atkins on , 128 Idaho 559, 561, 916 P.2d 1284, 1286 (Ct. App. 1996). At a suppression hearing, the power to assess the credibility of witnesses, resolve factual conflicts, weigh evidence, and draw factual inferences is vested in the trial court. State v. Valdez

- Molina
, 127 Idaho 102, 106, 897 P.2d 993, 997 (1995); State v. Schevers , 132 Idaho 786, 789, 979 P.2d 659, 662 (Ct. App. 1999).
III.
ANALYSIS

“ M indful of the Idaho appellate courts’ interpretation and applic ation of I.C. § 49

- 808(1),” Aragon argues the district court erred in denying his suppression motion. A traffic stop by an officer constitutes a seizure of the vehicle’s occupants and implicates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Delaware v. Prouse , 440 U .S. 648, 653 (1979); Atkinson , 128 Idaho at 561, 916 P.2d at 1286. Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer may stop a vehicle to investigate possible criminal behavior if there is a reasonable and articulable3

suspicion the vehicle is being driven contrary to traffic laws. United States v. Cortez , 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981); State v. Flowers , 131 Idaho 205, 208, 953 P.2d 645, 648 (Ct. App. 1998). In this case, t he district court concluded the officers had reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop because Aragon violated I.C. § 49

- 808(1) by failing to signal bef ore changing lanes

. Idaho Code § 49

- 808(1) provides :

No person shall turn a vehicle onto a highway or move a vehicle right or left upon a highway or merge onto or exit from a highway unless and until the movement can be made with reasonable safety nor w ithou t giving an appropriate signal.
This Court has repeatedly held this provision requires a motorist to signal when moving from a lane that clearly ends into another lane that continues. See , e.g. , State v. Colvin , 157 Idaho 881,
884

- 85, 341 P.3d 598, 6 01

- 02 (Ct. App. 2014); State v. Spies , 157 Idaho 269, 274, 335 P.3d 609, 614 (Ct. App. 2014) ; State v. Dewbre , 133 Idaho 663, 666, 991 P.2d 388, 391 (Ct. App. 1999)

. By moving left from a termination lane into a through lane, I.C. § 49

- 808(1) required Ara gon to signal before changing lanes. Because Aragon violated this traffic law, the officers had reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. Regardless, Aragon argues “he was not required to signal if the lane markings were potentially incorrect.” In support, Aragon relies on the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways to assert the solid white lines designating the lane into which he
turned “ were potentially incorrect [ly] ” mark ed

. Aragon’s argument fails

. Aragon has not
established the lane marking s were indeed incorrect

. Further, he has not established incorrect lane markings excuse his failure to comply with I.C. § 49

- 808(1) . He cites no authority for this proposition

. Cf. State v. Pressley , 131 Idaho 277, 279, 954 P.2d 1073, 1075 (Ct. App. 1998) (declining to find an exception to I.C. § 49

- 808(1)’s signaling requirement); see also State v.
Zichko , 129 Idaho 259, 263, 923 P.2d 966, 970 (1996) (ruling party waives issue if authority is lacking) . Accord ingly, we hold the district court did not err in denying Aragon’s suppression
motion.
IV.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court’s order denying Aragon’s suppression motion and his judgment
of conviction. Judge GRATTON and Judge HUSKEY CONCUR

.