I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO T HE S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA, A p p e llan t,

v. CH RI STO PH ER CR U Z C U EV A S, A ppel l ee. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C R 2006- 0157

DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI M A C OU NTY

C aus e N o. C R
- 20060254 H onor abl e C hr i s t opherB r ow ni ng, J udge REV ERSED A ND REM AN DED
B arbar a LaW al l , Pi m a C ount yA t t or ney B yT a re n M . E lli s
I s abel G
. G ar ci a, Pi m a C ount yL egal D efe nder B yS teph an J. M cC af

fe ry T ucs on A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant

T ucs on A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee
B R A M M E R , J udge. ¶1 T h e state ap p ea ls fro m the t ri al co u rt ’s gra n t of ap p ell ee C h ri stop h er C u ev as’s
m o tio n to su p p re ss e v id e n c e th a t p o lice h a d d isc o v e re d f o llo w in g th e tra f

f ic s to p o f a v e h icle FEB 15 20 07 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWOT he tr i al cour tdi d not r es ol ve thi s fac tual ques t i on, buti ns t ead de ci ded w hethert he 1 s t o p wa s p r o p e ra s a ma t t e ro f l a w. 2 i n w hi ch C uevas w as a pas s enger . T he s t at e ar gues t he tr i al cour terr ed i n det er m i ni ng t he p o lice o f f ic e r “ c o u ld n o t h a v e leg iti m a tely‘su sp e c ted ’” th e d riv e r h a d c o m m itt e d a tra f f ic vi ol at i on. W e r ever s e. Fac t ual and Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound ¶2 O n appea l fr om a gr antof a m ot i on t o s uppr es s , w e vi ew t he fac t s i n t he l i ght
m o s t f a v o ra b le to u p h o ld in g th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s ru lin g . Stat e v. Li vi ngs t on , 206 A r i z. 145, ¶ 3, 75 P. 3d 1103, 1104 ( A pp. 2003)
. I n J anuary 2006, T ucs on Pol i ce O ffi cerJ eff r eyH aw ki ns
w as “conduc t i ng a s ur vei l l ance on a s u s pect ed nar cot i cs hous e form ethamphet ami ne. ” A ft er h e sa w a re d M e rc u ryM y stiq u e lea v e th e h o u s e , h e “ b e g a n to tail th a t v e h icle ” in h is
u n m a rk e d p o lic e c a r. E d w in M a rt in w a s d ri v in g th e v e h ic le ; C u e v a s w a s h is p a s s e n g e r. ¶3 H aw ki ns fol l ow ed the M er cury“nor t h on Sw an [R oad] t o G r ant [R oad] ” and t es t i fi ed M ar t i n t hen “ma[d] e an i m pr operl eftturn ora w i de l efttur n ont o G r anti ns t ead of tur ni ng i nt o t he m edi an l ane. ” H aw ki ns t es t i fi ed t hat , att hatl ocat i on, G r anthas t hr ee l anes fo r w estb o u n d tr af

fic. H aw k ins w as b etw ee n thir tyto sev en ty -five fe et b eh ind the M erc u ry whe n M a r t i n ma d e t h e tu r n , a n d t h e r e wer e n o o t h e r v e h i c l e s b e t wee n h i s c a r a n d t he M er cury . H aw ki ns t es t i fi ed t r aff i c w as “fa i r l y l i ght , ” t her e w as no oncomi ng t r aff i c, and no appar entr eas on fort he M er curyt o tur n i nt o t he m i ddl e l ane as oppos ed t o t he medi an l ane. M ar t i n t es t i fi ed he ha d tur ned i nt o t he medi an l ane. 1“ [ T ]h e su b jec tiv e m o tiv e s o f a n o f f ice r do n o t in v a lid a te a n o th e rw ise law f u l traf f ic 2 s t op. ” St at e v. Li vi ngs t on , 2 0 6 A ri z. 14 5 , ¶ 1 3 , 7 5 P
. 3 d 1 1 0 3 , 1 1 0 6 (A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). 3 ¶4 H aw ki ns “ca l l ed fora mar ked patr ol caroffi ceruni tt o come and m ake a s t op on t he [M er cury ]. ” T h e o ff ic ers t opped the ca r“abouta mi l e” f r om t he G r antand Sw an i nt er s ect i on. H aw ki ns admi t t ed he had been “l ooki ng . . . for s om e r eas on t o p u ll [t he M er cury ] over , ” and the w i de l efttur n w as t he “s ole b as i s ” fort he tr aff i c s t op. A l t hough

2 t he tr ans cr i ptof t he hea r i ng does notes t abl i s h w hatt r ans pi r ed at t he t r aff i c s t op, a copyof t he patr ol offi cer ’ s r epor t , at t ache d t o C uevas ’ s m ot i on t o s upp ress, s t at es C uevas w as arrested p u rsua n t t o a n o u tst an d ing w arran t and the o ff icer’s sea rch o f th e M erc u ry
uncover ed a ha ndgun and drug par aphernal i a. A gr and j ur yi ndi ct ed C uevas forpos s es s i on of a de adl yw eapon bya pr ohi bi t ed pos s es s orand pos s es s i on of drug par aphernal i a. ¶5 F o llo w in g a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g , the tria l c o u rt g ra n ted C u e v a s’s m o tio n to
s uppr es s and the s t at e’ s s ubs equentm ot i on t o di s m i s s t he cha r ges . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. D i s cus s i on ¶6 “W e r evi ew t he tr i al cour t ’ s gr ant i ng of a mot i on t o s uppr es s foran abus e of di s cr et i on. ” Li vi ngs t on , 2 0 6 Ar i z . 1 4 5 , ¶ 3 , 7 5 P
. 3 d a t1 1 0 4
. “ We r e v i e w de novo the c o u rt ’s
u lt im ate l eg al d eterm ination o f th e p rop ri etyo f a stop as a ‘m ixed q u esti o n o f law an d fa ct. ’” Id. , qu oti ng Stat e v. R og ers , 186 A r i z. 508, 510, 924 P. 2d 1027, 1029 ( 1996)
. F o r t he in v e stig a to rysto p o f

a m o to r v e h icle to b e v a lid , the o f f ice r m u st “ p o s s e ss a re a so n a b le
s us pi ci on t hatt he dr i verhas comm i t t ed an of fens e, ” that i s , “‘ a part i cul ar i zed a nd obj ect i ve4

bas i s fors us pect i ng t he part i cul arper s on s t opped of c r i m i nal act i vi t y . ’ ” I d. ¶ 9 , q u o tin gS ta te
v. G onz al es - G ut i er r ez , 187 A r i z. 116, 118, 927 P. 2d 776, 778 ( 1996)
. “W hen off i cer s m ake tra f f ic s to p s b a s e d o n f

a c ts th a t n e ith e r c o n stitu te a v io latio n o f th e law n o r c o n stitu te
r eas onabl e gr ounds t o s us pectt he dr i verhas com m it ted an offens e, t heyrun afoul of t he Four t h A m endment r equi r ement t hat theypos s es s obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e gr ounds fort he i nt rus i on. ” I

d. ¶7 R es ol ut i on of t hi s cas e hi nges on w hether A
. R
. S. § 28- 751( 2) r equi r es a dr i ver
m a k in g a lef

t tu rn to tu rn o n lyin to th e lef tm o st la n e o f

th e stre e t o n to w h ich h e o r sh e is tur ni ng . “I nt erpr et at i on of s t atut es i s a ques t i on of l aw t hatw e r evi ew de novo. ” St at e v. Keene r , 206 A r i z. 29, ¶ 8, 75 P. 3d 119, 121 ( A pp. 2003)
. “G ener al l y , w e appl yt he pl ai n and
u n a m b ig u o u s la n g u a g e a s it is w ritten u n les s to d o so w o u ld p ro d u c e a n a b su rd o r im p o ss ib le
r es ul t . ” I

d. ¶8 Sect i on 28- 751( 2) governs t he “[r ] equi r ed pos i t i on and met hod of tur ni ng” for l eft turns and st at es:

T he dr i verof a ve hi cl e i nt endi ng t o tur n l eft s hal l appr oach the tu rn in th e e x tre m e lef

t-h a n d lan e law f

u lly a v a ilab le to tr a f

f ic m o v in g in th e d ire c tio n o f tra v e l o f

th e v e h icle . If

p ra c tica b le t he dr i vers hal l m ake t he l eft tur n fr om t he l eftof t he ce nt erof t he i nt er s ect i on and sha ll m ake the tur n t o t he l eftl ane i m m edi at el yavai l abl e fort he dr i ver ’ s di r ect i on of t r aff i c. T he t r i al cour t r eas oned t hat det er m i ni ng w hi ch l ane i s “i m m edi at el yavai l abl e” de pends on t he pos i t i on of t he vehi cl e w hen i t begi ns t he t ur n. T he t r i al cour t s t at ed, “i f t he l efttur ni ng
m o tio n w a s b e g [ u ]n a t th e so u th e rn -m o st p a rt o f S w a n R o a d , the m e d ian lan e w o u ld c lea rlyS ect i on 28 -601(8), A
. R
. S
. , defines an “i nter sect i on ” as 3 t he ar ea e m br ace d w i t hi n t he prol ongat i on or connec t i on of t he l at er al curb li nes , ori f none, t he l at er al boundaryl i nes of t he r oadw ay s of t w o hi ghw ay s t hatj oi n one an o ther at , or appr oxi m at el yat , r i ghtangl es , ort he ar ea w i t hi n w hi ch vehi cl es t r avel i ng on di ffe r ent hi ghw ay s j oi ni ng atanyot herangl e may come i n confl i ct . I f a hi ghw ay i ncl udes t w o r oadw ay s t hi r t yor m or e fe etapart , eac h cr os s i ng of ea ch r oadw ayof t he di vi ded hi ghw aybyan i nt er s ect i ng hi ghw ayi s a s epar at e i nt erse cti on. I f t he i nt er s ect i ng hi ghw ay al s o i ncl udes t w o r oadw ay s t hi r t yor m o r e f e e t a p a r t , e a c h c r o s s i n g o f t w o r o a d w a ys o f t h e h i g h w a ys i s a s epar at e i nt er s ect i on. 5 be the appr opr i at e l ane f ort he tur n, as i t w oul d be t he ‘ l eft l ane i m m edi at el y avai l abl e, ’ ” and

“ if th e lef t tu rn in g m a n e u v e r w a s c o m m e n c e d slig h tly n o rth o f th a t p o in t . . . the tu rn c o u ld law f u llyb e m a d e in to o n e o f th e [ th ro u g h ] la n e s . . . o th e r th a n th e m e d ian lan e .” C e n tra l to t he cour t ’ s concl us i on w as i t s det er m i nat i on t hatt he l at t erm aneuve rw as “nei t herpr es cr i bed,
norpr ohi bi t ed byA
. R
. S. § 28- 751, oranyot hers t atut e know n t o t he C our t . ” ¶9 Sect i on 28- 751( 2) s t at es “the dr i vers hal l m ake t he l efttur n fr om t he l eftof t he cent erof t he i nt er s ect i on. ” T hi s por t i on of t he s t atut e expr es s l ydes cr i bes t he ar ea f r om 3

w hich a dri ver m ustbeg i n a leftturn. F or t he fo l l ow i ng reas on s, w e con cl ud e t he m ost
r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on i s t hata dr i verm us tbegi n a tur n so m et i m e bef or e cr os s i ng t he cent erof t he i nt er s ect i on. U nl es s t he m edi an l ane i s fors om e r eas on unavai l abl e, t he dr i ver
m ay not pr ocee d s o far i nt o t he i nt er s ect i on t hat one of t he t hr ough l anes , i ns t ead of t he
m edi an l ane, becomes t he l ane “ i m m edi at el yavai l abl e” beca us e doi ng s o w oul d r equi r e the d ri v er t o cro ss th e cen ter o f t h e i n tersection b ef o re be g inn ing the tu rn . T h e statu te’sW e r eco g n ize t he s t atut e coul d be more cl ear , as i s A
. R
. S. § 28- 751( 1) , w hi ch 4 r equi r es r i ghttur ns t o be “made as cl os e as pr act i cabl e t o t he ri ght
- hand curb oredge of t he ro a d w a y .” 6 d e scripti o n o f “ the lef

t of the c en ter of

the in tersection , ” § 2 8 -75 1 (2), from w h ich th e turn i s t o be made m ayr efe rei t hert o t he l eft of t he i nt er s ect i on’ s cent erw hen vi ew i ng i tfr om t he dr i ver ’ s o ri g inal di r ect i on of t r avel orfr om hi s orheri nt ended di r ect i on of t r avel aft ert he turn has been com plet ed. T hu s, w e m usti nterprett his am biguou s st atute t o g i ve iti t s m ost
re a s o n a b le c o n s tr u c tio n . See S t ate v. P ow ers , 200 A r i z. 123, ¶ 8, 23 P. 3d 668, 671 ( A pp. 2001) ( “[W ] e att empt t o gi ve uncl ear [s t atut or y ] l anguage a s ens i bl e cons t ruct i on. ”)
. D oi ng
s o, w e r ead i tt o r efe rt o t he “ce nt erof t he i nt er s ect i on” i r r es pect i ve of the dr i ver ’ s di r ect i on of t r avel ; t hat i s , t he dr i ver m us ts t ayt o t he l eftof t he ce nt erof t he i nt er s ect i on t hr oughout t he e n t i r e tu r n . Th e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n r e n d e r s t h i s p o r t i o n o f § 2 8
- 7 5 1( 2) superflu o u s. “W e m usti nterprett he st atute s o thatno provis i on i s r end ered m eaningl ess, i ns i gni fi cant , orvoi d, ” Me ja k v . G ra n v ill e , 212 A r i z. 555, ¶ 9, 136 P. 3d 874, 876 ( 2006) , and
c o n c lu d e th is is th e m o s t r e a s o n a b le in te rp re ta tio n o f th a t p o rt io n o f

th e s ta tu te , see P ow ers , 200 A r i z. 123, ¶ 8, 23 P. 3d at671. 4 ¶10 I n St at e v. D eSant i ago , 983 P. 2d 1173, 1175 ( W as h. C t . A pp. 1999) , t he W ash ing ton C o u rto f A p p ea ls si m il arlyinterpre ted its st ate’s left-tu rn statute. T h e c o u rt concl uded t he port i on of t he st atut e re qui r i ng a dri ver m aki ng a l efttur n t o “ma[k] e [the tur n] t o the left o f the cent erof t he i nt er s ect i on, ” W as h. R ev. C ode A nn. § 46. 61. 290( 2) , m eant “the dr i verm us t m ake t he tur n t o t he l eftof t he ce nt erof t he i nt er s ect i on on t he r oadw ayA tor al ar gum ent , C uevas ar gued for t he fi r s t t i m e t hat , beca us e § 28- 751( 2) r equi r es 5 th a t a d riv e r b e g in a lef

t tu rn f ro m th e “ e x tre m e lef

t-h a n d lan e law f

u lly a v a ilab le,” b u t o n ly tu rn in to th e “ lef

t la n e im m e d iate ly a v a ilab le,” th e d riv e r m a y , a t h is o r h e r o p tio n , tur n in to e ith e r th e lef

tm o st , o r m e d ian , lan e o r th e lan e n e x t to it. H o w e v e r, th e sta tu te, w h ich is w r i t t en i n m andat or yt er m s , gi v es a d ri v er no di s cr et i on t o s el ectw hi ch l ane t o tur n i nt o, u n le s s tu rn in g in to th e le f tm o s t la n e is n o t “ p ra c tic a b le .”

7 bei ng ent er ed. T hi s m eans t he dr i vers hal l n otcr os s overcent er l i nes of t he i nt er s ect i ng
s t r eet s unt i l exec ut i ng t he tur n. ” 983 P. 2d at 1175. I n St at e v. St een , 102 P. 3d 1251, 1253- 54 ( M ont . 2004) , t he M ont ana Supr eme C o u rti nt erpr et ed thats t at e’ s l eft
- tur n s t atut e, w hi ch
r equi r es t hat “the l efttur n s hal l be made i n t hatpor t i on of t he i nt er s ect i on t o t he l eftof t he cent erof t he i nt er s ect i on, ” M ont . C ode A nn. § 61- 8- 333( 1) , t o m ean thata l efttur n m us tbe
m ade i nt o t he “i ns i de dr i vi ng l ane” beca us e t o hol d ot herw i s e w oul d r ender t hatpor t i on of t he s t atut e “s uper fl uous . ” See al s o R i chl i n v. G oodi ng A m us em ent C o. , 170 N
. E
. 2d 505, 508 (O h io C t. A p p . 1 9 6 0 ) (la n g u a g e a d d e d to lef t-tu rn sta tu te r e q u irin g “ tu rn sh a ll b e m a d e in th a t p o rtio n o f

th e in ter se c tio n to th e lef t o f th e c e n ter o f th e in ter se c tio n ” “ m a [ d ]e it p e rf e c tly cl eart hat‘ cut t i ng t he corner ’ as di s t i ngui s hed fr om t he ear l i er r equi r ement t o go bey ond t he
c e n ter o f th e in ter se c tio n b e f o re tu rn in g lef

t, w a s in ten d e d ” ). T h e in ter p re tatio n s th e se c o u rts h av e g iven to lan g u ag e sim il ar t o that o f § 28 -75 1 (2) are co n sist en t w ith o u r ow n , an d w e a re
a w a r e o f n o j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a th a s i n t e rp r e t e d s u c h l a n g u a g e d i f f e r e n t l y. 5 ¶11 M oreove r, previ ou s vers i on s of A ri zon a’s l eft -turn st atute have co nsi st en tly
r equi r ed a dr i vert o begi n a tur n befor e cr os s i ng t he ce nt erof t he r oadw ay . T he ver s i on of the s tatu te en ac ted in 1 9 5 0 state s , fo r “left turn s o n tw o -w ayroa d w ay s, ” tha t “t h e lef t tu rn8

s h a ll b e m a d e in th a t p o rt io n o f th e in te rs e c tio n to th e le f t o f th e c e n te r o f

th e in te rs e c tio n .” 1950 A r i z. Ses s . L aw s 1s tSpe c. Ses s . , ch. 3, § 76. For tur ns “on othert han tw o- w ay
r oadw ay s , ” the s t atut e r equi r ed a dr i ver“t o l eave t he i nt er s ect i on . . . i n t he l eft
- hand l ane l aw ful l yavai l abl e t o t r aff i c movi ng i n s uch di r ect i on upon t he roa dw ay bei ng ent er ed. ” I d. T he 1982 ver s i on of the s t atut e el i m i nat ed the di s t i nct i on betw een t w o- w ay r oads and other t ypes of roa ds , r equi r i ng, l i ke t he cur r ent ver s i on, t hat a dri ver m ake a t ur n “fr om t he l eftof t he ce nt erof t he i nt er s ect i on and .
. . t o t he l eft l ane i m m edi at el y avai l abl e for hi s di r ect i on of t r aff i c. ” 1982 A r i z. Ses s . L aw s , ch. 243, § 4. ¶12 R el y i ng on Li vi ngs t on , C u e v a s a rg u e s th e p h ra se , “if p ra c tica b le,” in § 28- 751( 2) “i ndi cat [es ] t hatw hatfol l ow s i s not an absol ut e re qui r ement t he bre ach of w hi ch
cons t i tut es a tr aff

i c vi ol at i on. ” I n Li vi ngs t on , a pol i ce offi cer s t opped a vehi cl e for a
su sp e c ted v io latio n o f A .R .S
. § 2 8 -7 2 9 (1 ). 2 0 6 A riz
. 1 4 5 , ¶ 1 0 , 7 5 P .3 d a t 1 1 0 6
. T h a t sta tu te
r eads : “A per s on s hal l dr i ve a ve hi cl e as near l yas pr act i cabl e ent i r el yw i t hi n a s i ngl e l ane and s hal l notm ove the vehi cl e fr om t hatl ane unt i l t he dr i verhas fi r s tas cert ai ned thatt he
m o v em en t can b e m ad e w ith sa fe ty . ” § 2 8 -72 9 (1). T h e o ff icer testi fied the d ef

en d an t’ s “r i ghts i de t i r es had cr os s ed t he w hi t e s houl der l i ne on one occ as i on. ” Li vi ngs t on , 206 A r i z. 1 4 5 , ¶ 4 , 7 5 P .3 d a t 1 1 0 5 . T h is c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th e p h ra s e , “ a s n e a rl ya s p ra c tic a b le ,” “demonstr at es an expr es s l egi s l at i ve i nt entt o avoi d penal i zi ng br i ef, m om ent ary , and mi nor devi at i ons out s i de the mar ked l i nes . ” I d. ¶ 1 0
.C uevas al s o r el i es on St at e v. Mor gan , 5 8 1 S
. E
. 2 d 2 9 6 (G a. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). In 6 Mor gan , a p o l i c e o f

f i c e rs t o p p e d a v e h i c l e a f t e ri tma d e a r i g h ttu r n i n t o t h e l e f tl a n e o f t wo la n e s . Id
. at 29 7
. T h e d ri v er “ tr av eled less than 1 0 0 fe et be fo re g e ttin g in to the lef t- turn l ane, and tur n[i ng] l eft
. ” I d. L ik e § 2 8
- 7 5 1 ( 1 ), th e G e o rg ia s tatu te r e q u ire s a rig h t tu rn to “be made as cl os e as pr act i cabl e t o t he r i ght
- hand curb oredge of t he r oadw ay . ” G a. C ode A nn. § 40- 6- 120( a) ( 1) ( W es t2006)
. T he courtconcl uded the tr af fic st op w as i m pr oper beca us e “the tur n des cr i bed byt he off i cerw as not unl aw ful , but w as i n fac tt he onl yw ayt he dr i vercoul d pr ocee d t o r eac h [t he l efttur n]
. ” Mor gan , 5 8 1 S .E .2 d a t 2 9 8
. 9 ¶13 T h e trial c o u rt h e re , h o w e v e r, n e ith e r f o u n d n o r d isc u ss e d w h e th e r M a rtin tur ned i nt o t he ce nt erl ane orw h ethe r a turn i nt o t he medi an l ane ha d been i m pr act i cabl e. Itinstead b ase d it s ruling o n it s interpre tat ion o f the statu te. M o reo v er, no thing in the rec o rd
s ugges t s H aw ki ns s aw anyt hi ng t hats houl d have c aus ed hi m t o concl ude i tw oul d have be en im p ra c tica b le f

o r M a rtin to tu rn in to th e m e d ian lan e . In d e e d , H a w k in s’s tes tim o n ystro n g ly 6

s ugges t ed t he oppos i t e. H e t es t i fi ed he ha d nots een a nyvehi cl es o r a n y thing i n t he r oad “thatw oul d have obstruct ed [M ar t i n fr om ] tur ni ng i nt o the pr operpos i t i on, ” and ther e had been n o “v eh icl es comi ng w es tbound .
. . norm aki ng a r i ghttur n . . . fr om s out hbound S w an . ” In the a b sen ce o f f ac ts sug g esti n g a p rop er turn w as i m p rac ti ca b le, if t h e tri al co u rt fi nds cr edi bl e H aw ki ns ’ s t es t i m onyt hatM ar t i n di d nottur n i nt o t he medi an l ane, H aw ki ns
c le a rl yh a d a re a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n th a t M a rt in h a d v io la te d § 2 8 -7 5 1 (2 ). See Li vi ngs t on , 206 A ri z . 1 4 5 , ¶ 9 , 7 5 P .3 d a t 1 1 0 5
. ¶14 W e concl ude t he t r i al cour terr ed i n det er m i ni ng § 28- 751( 2) does nots peci fy

w h e re a d riv e r m u st b e g in a le f t tu r n . A c c o rd in g ly , b e c a u se th e trial c o u rt m ista k e n ly in ter p re ted th e sta tu te, it ab u se d its d isc re tio n in g ra n tin g th e m o tio n to su p p re ss o n th e b a sisW e r ever s e i n s pi t e of the s t at e’s br i ef, w hi ch, al t hough i tr eas ons § 28- 751( 2) 7 r equi r es a dr i vert o tur n i nt o t he l eft
- m os t l ane, fai l s t o addr es s t he t r i al cour t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on o f th e s ta tu te o r c ite a u t h o ri ty su p p o rt in g its o w n in te rp re ta tio n . See Stat e v. C ar ver , 160 A r i z. 167, 175, 771 P. 2d 1382, 1390 ( 1989) ( “[O ] peni ng br i efs m us t pr es ents i gni fi cant ar gum ent s , s uppor t ed by author i t y , s et t i ng for t h an appe l l ant ’ s pos i t i on on t he i s s ues r ai s ed. F ail u re to a rgu e a claim u su all yco n s titu te s a b an d o n m en t and w aive r of that claim
. ”). B e c a u se th is a p p e a l p r e s e n ts a p u re lyleg a l issu e , w h ich w e re v iew d e n o v o , w e d e c lin e to f in d th e s ta te h a s w a iv e d th e e rr o r. S e e E v e n sta d v . S ta te , 178 A r i z. 578, 582, 875 P. 2d 811, 815 ( A pp. 1993) ( “I f appl i cat i on of a l egal pr i nci pl e . . . w oul d di s pos e of a n act i on on appea l and corr ect l yexpl ai n t he l aw , i ti s appr opr i at e forus t o cons i dert he i s s ue [i n s pi t e of w ai ver byt he appe l l ant ]
. ”)
. I tw oul d behoove the s t at e, how ever , t o compl yw i t h t he rul es of a p p e lla te p ro c e d u re in th e f u tu re . See A ri z . R . C ri m . P . 3 1 .1 3 (c )( 1 )( v i) , 1 7 A .R .S
. B eca us e w e det er m i ne t he tr i al cour tbas ed it s co ncl us i on on an i ncorr ect 8 i nt erpr et at i on of § 28- 751( 2) , w e nee d not ad dr es s t he s t at e’ s ar gum entt he s t op w as per m i s s i bl e “be caus e O ffi cerH aw ki ns bel i eved thatt he vehi cl e tur ned i nt o t he mi ddl e l ane a n d th is m is ta k e o f

f a c t w o u ld n o t in v a lid a te th e s to p .” 10 it d id
. See Tr i t

s chl erv. A l l

s t at e I ns . C o. , 213 A r i z. 505, ¶ 41, 144 P. 3d 519, 532 ( A pp. 2006) (“A co u rtab u ses its discretio n if i t com m it s leg al error in re ac h ing a d iscreti o n ary
con cl usi on , or if the recor d l acks subst anti al evidence t o sup po rti t s ruli ng . ”). W e revers e 7 t he rul i ng and r emand t he ca s e t o t he tr i al cour t t o det er m i ne w hetherH aw ki ns ’ s t es t i m ony t hatM ar t i n tur ned i nt o t he t hr ough l ane i ns t ead of t he m edi an l ane w as cr edi bl e and w hether
u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u c h a tu rn w a s “ p ra c tic a b le .” 8

J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge11

CO NC UR RI NG:

PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge

PH I L I P G
. E SPIN O SA , J udge