## FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT : ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE : PETER D. TODD GREGORY F. ZOELLER Elkhart, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
J.T. WHITEHEAD Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

JOSE M. SANTANA , ) ) Appellant

- Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 20A04

- 1302

- CR

- 54 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee

- Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE ELKHART SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Thomas Murto , Magistrate Cause No. 20D04

- 1112

- FC

- 34

May 30, 2014
OPINION
- FO R PUBLICATION MAY, Judge2

Jose M. S antana appeals his conviction of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life

. 1 As the police had reasonable suspicion to stop Santana, w e affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On D ecember 4, 2011, Goshen p olice officer Todd Burks saw a pick

- up truck Santana was driving in Goshen, Indiana. He ran the license plate information for the truck, but he omitted one digit from the plate number and the result came back “Not o n File.” 2 (Tr. at 6.)
Officer Burks followed the truck and saw it turn 100 to 150 feet after the turn signal was
activated

. Ind. Code § 9

- 21

- 8

- 25 requires : “ A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last two hund red (200) feet traveled by a vehicle before turning or changing lanes. ”
Officer Burks p ulled the truck over and asked Santana for his license. Santana sai d he did not have a license, and Officer Burks asked if he had any kind of identification. Santan a produced a Mexican voter r egistration card with his photograph. Officer Burks asked for the registration of the truck . He entered the number properly and discovered the registration was
valid

. However, Officer Burk s arrested Santana after he determine d Santana had been adjudicated an Habitual Traffic Offender such that his driving privileges were forfeited for
life

.

1 Ind. Code § 9

- 30

- 10

- 17.

2 Officer B ur ks testified a result of “Not on File” can indicate an old plate is being used on a new car, when the older vehicle has been sold or re

- registered. (Tr. at 19.)3

The State charged Santana with Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges were forfeited for life. Santana filed a Motion to Suppress, arguing Officer Burks did not have a valid basis for stopping his truck. The trial court denied the motion and , during the trial , Santana lodged a continuing objection to the validity of the stop. After a bench trial, Santana was found guil ty.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Our standard for review of rulings on the admissibility of evidence is essentially the same whether the challenge is made by a pre

- trial motion to suppress or by trial objection.
Turner v. State , 862 N.E.2d 695, 699 (Ind. Ct . App. 2007)

. We do not reweigh the evidence, and we consider conflicting evidence most favorable to the trial court ’ s ruling. Id. However,
we must also consider the uncontested evidence favorable to the defendant. Id. Police officers may stop a veh icle when they observe minor traffic violations. 3 Id

. A stop is lawful if there is an objectively justifiable reason for it, and a stop may be justified on less than probable cause. Id. If there is an objectively justifiable reason, then the stop is

va lid whether or not the police of ficer would have otherwise made the stop but for ulterior suspicions or motives. Id. at 699

- 700.

3 Santana also argues the stop was improper because the repor t his license plate number was not on file was erroneous. He argues an officer’s mistake of that nature cannot be a basis for the good faith exception to the requir ement of reasonable suspicion. We need not address that allegation of error, as the turn signal violation provided an independent basis for a valid traffic stop. The officer did not stop Santana until he saw the turn signal violation. Santana correct ly notes the officer agreed , when asked at trial , that “the focus of your traffic stop was the erroneous license plate as opposed to the two

- hundred (200) feet.” (Tr. at 12.) But t he officer was later asked, after he described Santana’s turn , “why did th at

. . . cause you to initiate the stop?” ( Id . at 35.) The officer responded with the requirement that a turn be signaled 200 feet prior to the turn.4

The trial court heard evidence Santana committed a traffic violation that would permit a lawful traffic stop. Officer Burks testified Santana did not signal for the proper distance before turning , but Santana argues the evidence shows there was “a real possibility” he could
have signaled “at the two hundred and fifteen foot (215) mark.” (Appellant’s Br. at 6.) Santana’s arg ument is a request to reweigh the evidence , which we may not do, s ee Turner , 862 N.E.2d at 699, and we accordingly affirm. See Haynes v. State , 937 N.E.2d 1248, 1253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (officer’s testimony of traffic infraction sufficient to justify tr affic stop),
trans. denied.
Affirmed. VAIDIK, C.J., and RILEY, J., concur.