I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CT - 0 2 1 3 3 - S CT DA V I D T R E JO
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 12/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S AM AC S . RI CH AR DS ON CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY : H U N TER N O LA N A I K EN S LESL I E S. LEE AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : LAU RA HO GA N TED DER D I STR I CT A TTO RN EY : M I CH A EL G U EST NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY DI SP OSI TI ON : THE J UD GM ENT O F THE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S AF F I RMED . T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CI RC UI T CO UR T OF M ADI S ON C OUNT Y I S RE VE RS E D AND R E N D E R E D - 12/ 15/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. I n thi s cert i or ar i cas e, the C our t of A ppeal s r ever s ed D avid T rej o’s convi ct i on and se n ten c e fo r p o ss e ss io n o f a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e w ith in ten t to d istrib u te, f in d in g th e S tate

### It is un disp utedthat the F ourth A mendment ap plies to veh icle stop s. Flo yd v. City 1 

### of Cr ys tal Spri ngs , 749 So. 2d 110, 114 ( Mis s. 1999) ( ci tati ons om itte d). Cady v . Dombrowski , 413 U. S. 433, 93 S. Ct . 2523, 37 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1973) . 2 

### Pic ou fl as hed hi s bright

li ghts between mil e m ar

ker s 114 and 115. 3 

### 2 h ad v iolated D av id T rejo’s F o u rth A m en d m e n t rig h t ag a in st u n re a so n a b le s e izu re . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h e ld th a t th e a rre stin g o ffic e r la c k e d p ro b a b le c a u se o r re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to m ake the tr af

f i c s t op thatl ed t o the dis covery of coca i ne; thus , the tr i al courts houl d have 1
s uppr es s ed the coca i ne as frui tof the poi s onous t r ee. W hi l e w e agr ee thatt he of f i cerl acke d p ro b a b le c a u se o r re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to sto p T re jo ’s v e h icle , w e re v iew th e c a se to determ i ne w hetherthe st op w as r easona ble unde r the co m m un i ty caretakin g functi on fi rs t pr onounced i n Cady v. D om br ow s ki . Fi ndi ng the s t op unr eas onabl e underthatdoc tr i ne t oo, 2
w e af f i r m the C our tof

A ppeal s ’ r ever s al of

T r ej o’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . F a cts ¶2. O f

f i cer C hr i s Pi cou w as tr avel i ng N or th on I - 55 at appr oxi m at el y 1: 17 a. m . w hen he came upon a r ed C hevr ol etSU V w i th a Texas l i cens e pl at e t r avel i ng i n t he l ef t - hand ori ns i de l ane. T he SU V w as tr avel i ng appr oxi m at el y 58- 60 m i l es perhouri n an area w her e the
m inim u m p o sted sp ee d li m itis 45 m il es p er h o u r an d the m ax im u m is 70 m il es p er h o u r. P ico u w a s tra v e lin g 7 0 m iles p e r h o u r in the left-h a n d lan e b e h in d T re jo w h e n h e fla sh e d h is b rig h t li g h ts fo r th e S U V to m o v e o v e r so th a t h e c o u ld p a ss . W h e n th e d riv e r fa iled to change l anes , Pi cou f

l ashed hi s br i ght s tw o m or e t i m es , w i th t en s econds pas s i ng betw een e a c h fla sh . A fte r th e th ird fla sh , P ico u in iti a ted h is b lu e lig h ts, a n d th e d riv e r im m e d iate ly 3 p u ll ed o n to the interst ate sh o u lder.

### Pico u h adn ineteenyears o f law e nfo rcement experien ce, andhis o fficial title is 4 

### “master sergeant in th e Narco tics Div ision .” 3 ¶3. Pi cou t es t i f

i ed that he pul l ed over the SU V beca us e he w as conce rned the dr i verw as in to x ica ted o r tire d . P ic o u te s tifie d th a t h e d id n o t sto p th e S U V b a se d o n a n y tra ffic vi ol at i on. Pi c ou a l s o t e s t i f i e d the r e w a s no tr a f

f i c i n the r i gh tl a ne w hi c h woul d h a ve p r e v e n t e d h i m f

r o m p a s s i n g th e S UV. ¶4. W hen Pi cou appr oache d the vehi cl e, he not i ced that the dr i ver , D avi d T r ej o, di d not h av e slu rre d sp ee ch b u t app ea red ti red , g lassy -ey ed , an d n erv o u s. H is f em ale p asse n g er, P e b b les N u tt, se e m e d g ro g g y . P ico u a lso n o tice d th a t th e c a r sm e lled s tr o n g ly o f fa b ric s of t ener , w hi ch i n hi s exper i ence i s us ed t o coverthe odorof contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s . H e then 4
r eques t ed Tre

j o’ s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e and c hecke d hi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory, w hi ch r evea l ed pr evi ous convi ct i ons f

orpos s es s i on of

a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . ¶5. W hen P i cou q uest i on ed T rej o abo ut hi s cri m i nal hi s t ory, T r ej o r eport ed onl y a convi ct i on forst eal i ng an aut om obi l e. Pi cou al s o asc ert ai ned t hatT r ej o w as t r avel i ng f r om H ous t on, a “s our ce ci ty” f ordrugs , t o O hi o, a “s our ce a r ea” f ordi s tr i but i on of

drugs . Pi cou th e n a sk e d fo r p e rm iss io n to se a rc h T re jo ’s v e h icle fo r c o n tro lle d s u b s ta n c e s, a n d T re jo deni ed perm i s s i on. P i cou i nf or m ed T r ej o t hathe w as goi ng t o run a dog ar ound the vehi cl e, an d requ ested th at T rejo an d N u ttst an d aw ay fr o m th e v eh icl e. W h en N u ttex ited th e ca r, s he qui ckl y turned herback t o O f f i cerT r ej o, w hi ch f

ur therar ous ed hi s s us pi ci on. Pi cou i ns truct ed N ut tt o turn a r ound t o make s ur e s he had no w eapons , a nd w hen s he di d, he s aw a l ar ge bul ge underhercl othi ng atherm i ds ect i on. W i th the bac k of hi s hand, Pi cou f

el tt he

### Trejo v. Sta te , 2010 WL 2271518, *2 (Mi ss . Ct . App. June8, 2010) . 5 

### We not e the Cour

t of Appea ls er

rone ously re fe rr ed t o Co uld ery v. Sta te , 890 So. 2d 6 

### 95 9 (M iss. Ct. App . 20 04 ), as a decisio n o f this C ourt. Id. at * 4. Terry v. Ohio , 393 U. S. 1, 88 S. Ct . 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968) . 7 

### Trejo , 2010 WL 2271518, at *3. 8 

### 4 bul ge. H e i m m edi at el y r ecogni zed thatN ut thad str apped a contr ol l ed subs t ance t o herbody, and he r ecove r ed tw o ki l ogr ams of coca i ne. ¶ 6 . T re

jo w a s in d ic te d a n d f

o u n d g u ilty o f p o s s e s s in g c o c a in e w ith in ten t to se ll in vi ol at i on of

M i s s i s s i ppi Code Sect i on 41- 29- 139 and s ent ence d t o s i xty year s as a habi tual o ffen d e r. P ri o r t o tr ial , T rejo fil ed a m o ti o n to su p p ress the co ca ine, w h ich th e tri al co u rt deni ed. T he tr i al courtf ound thatT r ej o w as s t opped f or“s af ety r eas ons , ” namel y “t o chec k for the im p airm en t of the d ri v er, w h ethe r itw as alco h o l or sleep d ep ri v ati o n o r w h at[ ev er] e lse [,] ” to p re v e n t an a c c id e n t. C ourt of A ppeal s ’ O pi ni on ¶7. T r ej o appea l ed hi s convi ct i on and sent ence , ar gui ng t he ci r cui tcourterr ed i n denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . T he C our tof A ppeal s di d notaddr es s the ci r cui tcourt ’ s f i ndi ng t hat 5 this case inv o lved a “sa fety” stop , a s o p p o sed to an “ inv esti g atory stop . ” R athe r, the C o u rt 6 of A ppeal s f

ound t hatthe i ni t i al t r af

f i c st op w as an “i nves t i gat ory s t op” and l ooked t o T erry v. O h io to co m p let e it s an alys is. T h e C o u rto f A p p ea ls de term ined that, sinc e P icou ’s

7 8

“ su sp icio n th a t T re

jo w a s tired o r im p a ire d is n o t su ffic ien t to c o n stitu te a re a so n a b le b a sis for the tra ffic sto p [, ] ” the n “the re w as n o p rob ab le ca u se o r reaso n ab le su sp ici o n to justi fy

### Id. at ** 1, 4 . 9 

### Id . at ** 3, 6 . 10

### Id. at *6 . 11 

### Cady v . Dombrowski , 413 U. S. 433, 436, 448, 93 S. Ct. 2523, 37 L. Ed. 2d 706 12 

### (1973) . Id.

13 

### Id. at 43 7. 14 

### 5 th e in iti a l tra ffic s to p . . . .” T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls th e n c o n c lu d e d th a t th e c o c a in e w a s “ fru it 9
o f th e p o ison o u s tr ee [, ] ” w ith o u t w h ich “ there is no rem ainin g ev iden ce to u p h o ld T rejo’s convi ct i on. ” I tr ever s ed and r ender ed a j udgm entof acqui t t al f

orT r ej o. 10 11 D i s cus s i on ¶8 . A g g ri ev ed b y the C o u rto f A p p ea ls’ d ec isi o n , the S tat e fil ed a p eti ti o n fo r ce rt iorari
w i th thi s C our t . A l though w e conc l ude, as d i d t he C our tof A ppeal s , thatther e w as no pr obabl e ca us e orr eas onabl e s us pi ci on of cr i m i nal act i vi ty t o j us t i fy t he s t op, w e or der ed ad d it ion al briefing to ad d ress the co m m u n ity c are takin g fu n cti o n in li g h t of the tr ial co u rt ’s f i ndi ng thatPi cou had pe r f or m ed a “ s af

ety” s t op. ¶ 9 . T h e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt first a p p lied th e c o m m u n ity c a re tak in g fu n c tio n in Cady v. D om br ow s ki . I n thatcas e, the Supr eme C our tuphe l d the s ear ch of an i m pounded 12 aut om obi l e af

t eri t s dr i ver , an of

f
- duty pol i ce of

f i cer , w as arr es t ed f

ordrunk dr i vi ng af

t er r eport i ng a n a cci dent . T he pol i ce s ear ched the vehi cl e w i thouta w arr antt o look for t he 13
o ff-d u ty o ffic e r’s se rv ice rev o lv e r an d fo u n d ev id e n c e o f an o th e r cr im e . T h e o ff -d u ty 14 of f i cerm oved t o s uppr es s the evi dence , butthe C our tuphel d the s ear ch, r eas oni ng:

### Id. at 44 1; se e al so Colorado v. Bert

ine , 47 9 U . S. 36 7, 37 1, 10 7 S . Ct . 73 8, 93 L. 15 

### Ed. 2d 739 ( 1987) ( finding pol ic e e ngage d in c ar et aking duties in inventor y se arch of

a lawfu lly imp ound ed v ehicle); South Dakot a v. Opper

man , 42 8 U .S. 3 64 , 37 2-7 5, 9 6 S . Ct. 309 2, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1000 ( 1976) ( finding invent ory s earc h re as onabl e be ca usepoli ce care taking proce dure s aredes igne d to s ec ureand prote ct vehi cl es and their c onte nts ). Cady , 413 U. S. at 44 6. 16

### Id. at 447. 17 

### 6 [S]t ate a n d loc al po li ce o ffi ce rs, u n li k e fe d era l offi ce rs, h av e m u ch m o re cont actw i th vehi cl es f orr eas ons r el at ed t o the oper at i on of vehi cl es themsel ves. A l l St at es r equi r e vehi cl es t o be r egi s t er ed and ope r at or s t o be l i cens ed. St at es and l ocal i t i es hav e en act ed ext ens i ve and de t ai l ed code s r egul at i ng the condi t i on and manneri n w hi ch mot orvehi cl es m ay be ope r at ed on pu bli c street s and h i gh w ays. B eca us e of

the ext ens i ve r egul at i on of m ot orvehi cl es and t r af f i c, and al s o beca us e of

the f r equency w i th w hi ch a ve hi cl e ca n become di s abl ed or i nvol ved i n an ac ci den ton pu bl i c hi ghw ays , the ext entof pol i ce- ci t i zen c ont act i nvol vi ng a ut om obi l es w i l l be s ubs t ant i al l y gr eat erthan pol i ce- ci t i zen c ont act i n a home orof

f i ce. Som e s uch cont act s w i l l o ccur b ecaus e the of f i cerm ay bel i eve the oper at orha s vi ol at ed a cr i m i nal s t atut e, butm any more w i l l notbe o f th a t n a tu re . L o c a l p o lice o ffic e rs, u n lik e fe d e ra l o ffic e rs, fre q u e n tly in v e stig a te v e h icle a c c id e n ts in w h ich th e re is n o c laim o f c rim in a l li a b ili ty and eng age in w hat, forw ant of a bett er t erm , m ay b e descri bed as c o m m u n ity car e- taki ng f

unct i ons , t ot al l y di vor ced f r om the det ect i on, i nves t i gat i on, or acqui s i t i on of

evi dence r el at i ng t o the vi ol at i on of a cr i m i nal s t atut e. 15 T he C our tfound the se ar ch r eas onabl e, as the pol i ce w er e “s i m pl y r eac t i ng t o the ef f ectof an ac ci dent–one of

the r ecurr i ng pr act i cal s i tuat i ons thatr es ul t s f r om the oper at i on of

m ot or v eh icl es a n d w ith w h ich the lo ca l po li ce m u st de al ev ery d ay . ” F u rth erm o re, th e C o u rt 16 not ed thati tw as re as onabl e f ort he of f i cer s t o sea r ch t he vehi cl e t o re coverthe r evol ver“f or the s afe ty o f th e g en era l p u b li c w h o m igh t b e en d an g ere d if an intru d er rem o v ed a re v o lver” f r om the vehi cl e. 17

### Floyd v. Cit y of Cry st al Springs , 749 So. 2d 110, 114- 15 (Mi ss . 1999) . 18 

### Id. at 112. 19

### Id. at 112-13. 20 

### 7 ¶10. T he St at e ar gues that thi s C our t s houl d adopt the comm uni ty car et aki ng f unct i on, as Pi cou w as act i ng i n hi s duty t o pr ot ectthe publ i c’ s s af ety w hen he s t opped Tre j o’ s vehi cl e. I tar gues Pi cou r eas onabl y devel oped s us pi ci on of c r i m i nal a ct i vi ty a f

t ere f f ect i ng the s t op. ¶11. C onvers el y, T rej o argues the Supr eme C our thas us ed the comm uni ty car et aki ng fu n c tio n o n ly in su p p o rt o f in v e n to ry se a rc h e s o f im p o u n d e d c a rs. T re jo a rg u e s w e sh o u ld
n o te x t e n d th e f

u n c t i o n t o c r e a t e a n e w o rs e p a r a t e e x c e p t i o n t o th e wa rr a n tr e q u i r e me n t . He al s o ar gues thatthe s t op doe s notmeetthe comm uni ty c ar et aki ng f unct i on even i f

w e adopt and appl y i ti n t hi s cas e. ¶12. N um er ous j ur i s di ct i ons have appl i ed the comm uni ty car et aki ng f unct i on beyond the co n text o f Cady to in sta n c e s s u c h a s th e p re se n t. A n d th is C o u rt re c o g n ize d th e d o c trin e in Floyd v. Cit

y of Cr ys tal Springs . I n thatc as e, w e w er e conf r ont ed w i th an of

f i cer ’ s s t op 18 of a vehi cl e bas ed sol el y on a ci t i zen c om pl ai ntof r eckl es s dr i vi ng. T he of f i cers t opped the 19 dr i veran d f

ou nda n o pe ne d b ott l e of vo dka on the s e a ta nd a rr e s t e d the dr i ve rf ordr i vi ng underthe i nf

l uence . 20 ¶13. I n Floyd , the St at e ar gued thi s C our ts houl d eval uate t he s t op underthe f ol l ow i ng s t andar d: “‘ [ W ] hen pol i ce cr os s a thr es hol d noti n thei rcr i m i nal i nves t i gat ory capa ci ty, but as p art of the ir com m uni t y car etaki ng f

unct i on, i ti s cl eart hatt he s t andar d f oras s es s i ng the F o u rth A m e n d m e n t pr o p rie ty o f su c h co n d u c t i s w h e th e r th e y p o ss e ss e d a re a so n a b le b a sis

### Id. at 117 (quoting Stat

e v . Al exander , 721 A. 2d 275, 284-85 ( Md. Ct . Spe c. App. 21 

### 1998)) . Id. at

118. 22

### Peo ple v. M ad rid, 85 Cal. Rptr . 3d 900, 906 (Ca l. Ct. App. 2008) . 23 

### Stat e v . Brown , 509 N. W.2d 69, 71 (N. D. 1993) . 24 

### Cady , 413 U. S. at 439. 25 

### Floyd, 749 So. 2d at

113. 26 

### See ge nerall

y Brigha m C

ity, Uta h v. S

tua rt, 5 47 U . S. 3 98 , 4 04 , 1 26 S . C t . 1943, 27 

### 164 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2006) (Cour t r uling that i t ha d “r epe at edly re je ct ed”cons ide ring an off ic er ’s subj ec tive inte nt and that “ subj ec tive m otivation i s irr el evant” ). 8 fo r d o in g w h a t th e y d id .’” W h ile w e ac k n o w led g e d the co m m u n ity ca re tak in g fu n c tio n in 21 thatcas e, w e ul t i m at el y uphel d the s t op as reas on abl e underthe r eas onabl e- s us pi ci on s t andar d. 22 ¶14. W e fi nd “no r eas oned ar gum enti n s uppor tof a ca tego ric a l r ef

us al t o appl y t he c o m m u n ity c a re tak in g ex c e p tio n to v e h icle sto p s[,] ” an d w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e c o m m u n ity 23
car et aki ng f

unct i on i n Cady m ay appl y i n cont ext s otherthan i nvent ory searche s , as the pol i ce pr ovi de many f

unct i ons a partf

r om i nves t i gat i ng c r i m i nal a ct i vi ty. B utonl y “[ u] nder appr opr i at e ci r cumst ance s [ m ay] a l aw e nf or cementof

f i cer. . . be f

ul l y j us t i f

i ed i n s t oppi ng a vehi cl e t o pr ovi de as s i s t ance , w i tho ut needi ng any r eas onabl e bas i s t o s us pectcr i m i nal a c tiv ity .” In a p p ly in g th e c o m m u n ity c a re tak in g fu n c tio n , “[t]he u lti m a te s tan d a rd . . . is

24
r eas onabl enes s . ” W e r evi ew t he det erm i nat i on of r eas onabl enes s undera de novo s t andar d, 25 butr evi ew f

i ndi ngs of

hi s t or i cal factforcl earerr or . A s w i th otherFour th A m endment 26 anal ys es , thi s C our tw i l l nott r y t o det erm i ne the s ubj ect i ve i nt entof the per s on m aki ng t he sto p b u t w ill e x a m in e w h e th e r th e s to p is o b jec tiv e ly re a so n a b le. In d o in g so , w e lo o k to 27

### Go nza les v. Sta te , 963 So. 2d 1138, 1142 (Mi ss . 2007) (c iting Terry v. Ohio , 392 28 

### U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct . 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968) ). Co rbin v. Sta te , 85 S. W. 3d 27 2, 27 6 ( Te x. Cri m . Ap p. 20 02 ) ( qu oti ng Wright v. 29 

### Sta te , 7 S. W.3d 148, 151 (Te x. Crim . App. 1999)) . See Cady , 413 U. S. at 44 7. 30 

### Sta te v. Rin eha rt, 617 N.W. 2d 842, 844 (S. D. 2000) (quoting Co m. v. W aters , 456 31 

### S.E. 2d 527, 530 (Va. App. 1995) ). See Rowe v. Maryland, 769 A. 2d 879 (Md. 2001) ( st op unre as onabl e whe re 32 

### def endant wa s driving at 1:0 0 a.m. in far right lane of int er st at e at 50- 54 mi le s pe r hour wher e s pee d limi t wa s 65 and def endant’ s c ar

had cross ed whi teedge -l ineonto s houlde r) ; Co rbin v. Sta te , 85 S. W.3d 272 ( Tex. Crim . App. 2002) (s top unrea sona blewher e de fe ndant was dri ving 52 m iles p er hour in 65 mi le s- per -hour zoneat 1:00 a .m . ne ar

int er se ction of int er st at e and highway, and def endant’ s c ar

cross ed onto shoul der

of roa d for le ss than one secon d). But se e Stat

e v . Marti nez , 615 A. 2d 279 (N. J. Super . Ct . App. Div. 1992) ( st op re as onabl e wher e def

endant was travel ing le ss then 10 mil es per hour on a 25 m il es -pe r- hour residential street at 2 a.m.); Sta te v. Rin eha rt, 61 7 N .W.2 d 8 42 (S.D . 20 00 ) (stop reason able wher e de fe ndant

was trave ling at

1:05 a.m . on a des erte d stre et going 20- 25 mi le s pe r hour 9 w hetherthe s t oppi ng of f i cerc an poi ntt o “ ‘ s peci f i c and art i cul abl e f

act s w hi ch, t aken t ogetherw i th r at i onal i nf er ence s f r om thos e f

act s , r eas onabl y w arr ant ’ ” the s t op . T he 28 qu est i on beco m es w hethera reas on able perso n, “given t he tot al i ty o f the cir cum st ances, w o u ld b e lie v e [th e in d iv id u a l] is in n e e d o f h e lp ” o r th a t th e sa fe ty o f th e p u b lic is

29 end ang ered. H ow ever, cou rt s m ustcaref ull y an al yze the tot al i ty o f the cir cum st ances, so 30 th a t th e c o m m u n ity c a re tak in g fu n c tio n is “ ‘c a u tio u sly a n d n a rro w ly a p p lied in o rd e r to m inim ize the ri sk that itw il l be a b u sed o r use d as a p retex t for c o n d u cti n g an inv esti g atory [st o p an d ] sea rch for c ri m inal ev iden ce . ’” 31 ¶15. W e begi n oura nal ys i s by not i ng thata tl eas ttw o otherj uri sdi ct i on s applyi ng the comm uni ty car et aki ng f unct i on have c oncl uded thats t ops ef f ect ed unders i m i l ar ci r cumst ance s w er e unr eas onabl e. L i kew i se, upon r evi ew i ng the t ot al i ty of the 32

### wh ere speedlimit was 40 miles p er ho ur); Ortega v. State , 974 S. W.2d 361 ( Tex. Ct. App.

1998) ( st op re as onabl e whe redef endant was driving “[i ] n theearly mor ning hour s”a 1979 Ford Bronco at 18- 20 mi le s pe r hour in a 50 mi le s- per -hour

zone ). Trejo, 2010 WL 2271518, at *4. 33 

### 10 c irc u m sta n c e s in th is c a se , w e fin d th e trial ju d g e e rre d in fin d in g th e sto p w a s re a so n a b le
u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. W e a re u n a b le to c o n c lu d e th a t a r e a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld have be l i eved Tr ej o w as i n need of hel p orthatthe publ i c w as endange r ed. ¶16. B eca us e of the r i s k of danger t o a dr i ver as w el l as the tr avel i ng publ i c, w e agr ee that i tw oul d be r eas onabl e f ora pol i ce of

f i cert o s t op an i ndi vi du al w ho appear s t o be f al l i ng as l eep w hi l e dr i vi ng. H ow ever , the f act s prese nt ed her e s i m pl y do nots uppor ts uch an i nfer ence. T here w as no evi dence of err at i c dr i vi ng. T r ej o w as tr avel i ng appr oxi m at el y 10- 12 m i l es perhourbel ow the maxi m um s peed l i m i tof 70 m i l es perhour a nd w el l above the
m i ni m um s peed l i m i tof 45 m i l es perhour i n t he l ef t - hand l ane ar ound 1: 00 a. m . W e do not think his speed w as so sl ow that a r easona ble person w ou l d b el i eve iti nd i cat i ve o f di stres s. W e a lso d o n o t fin d th a t T re jo ’s f a ilu re to c h a n g e lan e s a fte r P ico u fla sh e d h is b rig h t li g h ts w as necessar i l y indi cat i ve o f d istres s, no r w as i tso w hen con si dered w i th the ot her f act s. Pi cou f l as hed hi s br i ghtl i ght s i n qui ck s ucce s s i on on a des ert ed s tr et ch of i nt er s t at e. A nd no tr af f i c pr event ed Pi cou f

r om pas s i ng T r ej o i n the r i ghtl ane. W e f i nd the f ol l ow i ng a n a ly sis b y th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls e sp e c ially re lev a n t: T r ej o w as notw eavi ng ordr i vi ng err at i cal l y, an d t her e i s no i ndi cat i on that T re jo w a s e v e n a w a re th a t h e w a s b e in g f o llo w e d b y la w e n fo rc e m e n t . . . . T hi s l ack of

a w ar enes s i s s uppor t ed by the f actthatw hen O f

f i cerPi cou turned on hi s f l as hi ng bl ue l i ght s , T r ej o pr om pt l y pul l ed overt o the s i de of the r oad. 33

### Id. at *6. 34 

### 11 T her e f or e , we f

i nd tha tthe f

a c t s p r e s e nt e d a tthe s up pr e s s i on h e a r i ng d o no tj us t i f y a r eas onabl e bel i ef

thatT r ej o neede d hel p orthatthe publ i c w as endange r ed, and as s uch, the tri al cou rtshou l d h ave g rant ed T rej o’s m oti on t o sup press . C oncl usi on ¶1 7. I n app l yi ng the c omm un i ty c a r e t a ki ng f un c t i on t o the f

a c t s of thi s c a s e , w e f

i nd t he tr i al courterr ed i n denyi ng T r ej o’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he coca i ne as evi dence . A s not ed by th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, “ [w ]i th o u t t h e c o c a in e , the re is n o re m a in in g e v id e n c e to u p h o ld T r ej o’ s convi ct i on. ” T her ef or e, w e af

f i r m the C our tof A ppeal s ’ j udgm entt o r ever s e and 34
r enderT r ej o’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . ¶ 1 8 . T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S AF F I RM ED . T HE J UDG M ENT OF THE CI RCU I T COU RT OF M ADI S ON CO UNTY I S REVERSED AND RE NDE RE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , AND CA RL S ON, P. J . , CONCUR. KI TC HENS , J . , CONCURS I N RESULT ONLY W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY DI CK I NSON, P. J . ; DI CK I NSON, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N RESULT W IT H O U T S E P A R A T E W R IT T E N O P IN IO N . R A N D O L P H , J. , C O N C U R S IN PART AND DI S S ENTS I N PART W I TH S EPARATE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED B Y P I E RC E , J . CH AN DL E R A ND KI NG , J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . KI TC HENS , J US TI CE , CONCURR I NG I N RE S UL T ONL Y: ¶19. W hi l e I concur w i th m uch of the anal ys i s and w i th the r es ul t r eac hed by the pl ur al i ty, I w r i t e br i ef

l y t o expr es s , w i t h r es pect , m y di s agr eementw i th the pl ur al i ty’ s unequi vocal adopt i on of

the s o- cal l ed com m uni ty car et aki ng f unct i on as a s t andar d t o be empl oyed by M i s s i s s i ppi court s i n det erm i ni ng w hetherpol i ce s t ops of m ot or i s t s on publ i c thor oughf ar es a re re a s o n a b le in th e c o n te x t o f e s ta b lis h e d s e a rc h a n d s e iz u re la w .

### 12

¶20 . T he p l ural i ty cit es Floyd v. Ci t y of Cr ys tal Springs , 7 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ), as havi ng re cogni zed the doctr i ne of comm uni ty car et aki ng by pol i ce, yetnot es thatFl oyd
w a s d e c id e d u n d e r th e re a so n a b le s u sp icio n sta n d a rd . P lu r. O p . at ¶ 1 3 . It i s im p o rta n t to emphasi ze thatthe comm uni ty car et aki ng l anguage i n Floyd w as m er e di ct a, and i n no w ay ado pted this j ud i ci al co ntr i van ce as a st and ard t hat shou l d app l y t o po l i ce st op s of m otor i st s. ¶21. M or eover , i ti s i m por t antt o not e thatthe f act s i n Ca d

y v. D o m b r o w s k i, 413 U . S. 433, 9 3 S . C t. 25 2 3 , 3 7 L . E d . 2 d (1 9 7 3 ), o n w h ich th e p lu ra lity re lies in a d o p tin g th e c o m m u n ity car et aki ng f

unct i on, ar e vast l y di f f er entf r om thos e i n the pr es entcas e. I n Cady , the d e fe n d a n t w a s in v o lv e d in a m o to r v e h ic le a c c id e n t a n d te le p h o n e d p o lic e . I d. at435- 36. T he r es pondi ng of

f i cer s pi cked up t he def

endantatthe t avern f

r om w hi ch he ha d pl ace d t he cal l , dr ove hi m back t o the s cene of the ac ci dent , and en r out e, not ed thatthe def endant a p p e a re d in to x ic a te d . I

d. a t 4 3 6 . T h e d e fe n d a n t in fo rm e d th e o ffic e rs th a t h e w a s a n o ff-d u ty pol i ceman; and upon thei rarr i val atthe di s abl ed vehi cl e, of f i cer s s ear ched hi s carundert he p re te n s e o f l o c a tin g th e d e fe n d a n t’ s s e rv ic e re v o lv e r. Id . N o r evo l ver w as f ound, and the d is a b le d v e h ic le w a s to w e d fr o m th e ro a d s id e to a p ri v a te ly o w n e d g a ra g e . I d. T he def

endant
w as e ventual l y a r r es t ed and char ged w i th dr i vi ng unde rthe i nf l uence of al cohol and l at erw as h o s p it a li z e d d u e to in

ju ri e s s u s ta in e d in th e a c c id e n t. I d. O p era ti n g u n d er stan d ard depart m ent al pr ocedur e, one of the arr es t i ng of

f i cer s then per f

or m ed an i nvent ory s ear ch of th e d e fe n d a n t’ s im p o u n d e d v e h ic le , c la im in g to b e lo o k in g fo r th e s e r v ic e r e v o lv e r. I d . at 437. T he s ear ch of

the vehi cl e and trunk r evea l ed notthe r evol verbutevi dence and in s tru m e n ta litie s o f a n u n re la te d c ri m e . Id .

### 13

¶22. I n f

i ndi ng thatthi s w as a r easona ble s earch un der t he F ou rth A m end m ent , the Supr eme C our temphasi zed the f ol l ow i ng f

act s : the vehi cl e w as di s abl ed by an ac ci dent , t he d ri v er w as in tox icated an d u n ab le t o m ak e arran g em en ts to m o v e the v eh icl e, th e v eh icl e’s pr es ence al ongs i de the hi ghw ay w as a nui s ance , the pol i ce ha d a form of cus t ody overt he vehi cl e af

t eri t s havi ng been t ow ed t o t he gar age, the s ear ch of the vehi cl e f

orthe r evol ver w a s a n e x e rc ise in p u b lic s a fe ty to p re v e n t th e d e fe n d a n t’s s e rv ice re v o lv e r fro m fa lli n g in to the w r ong hands , and the sear ch of an i m pounded vehi cl e w as s t andar d pr ocedur e f ort he p o lic e d e p a rt m e n t. I

d. at442- 43. T hes e f

act s ar e w hol l y di s t i ngui shable fr om the pr es ent ca se, i n w h ich O ffi ce r P icau m ad e a tr affic st o p o f a fun cti o n al ve h icl e b ase d u p o n a m ere s us pi ci on tha tTr e

j o w a s e i the ri nt ox i c a t e d ord r owsy . I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , the r e was no ac cide n t r eq u ir ing P icau ’s assist an ce , the re w as n o d isab led v eh icl e o n a ro ad side , an d there
w a s n o s ta n d a rd -p ro c e d u re , in v e n to ry s e a rc h o f a n im p o u n d e d v e h ic le . ¶23. T he pl ur al i ty s t at es : “[ W ] e conc l ude thatthe comm uni ty car et aki ng f unct i on i n Cady
m ay appl y i n cont ext s otherthan i nvent ory s ear ches , as the p ol i ce pr ovi de many f unct i ons a p a rt fro m in v e stig a tin gc rim in a l a c tivity . ” Pl ur . O p. a t¶ 14 ( emphasi s a dded) . H ow ever , t he pr es entcas e w as notan i ns t ance i n w hi ch a pea ce of f i cerw as act i ng i n a capaci ty apartf r om in v e s tig a tin g c ri m in a l a c tiv ity , s in c e O ff ic e r P ic a u te s tif

ie d th a t, d e s p ite a n y in d ic a tio n (i .e ., of a tr af f i c vi ol at i on , o r er r at i c dr i vi ng) , he s us pect ed Tre j o of bei ng ei therdr ow s y or in to x ic a te d a n d m a d e th e s to p to “ c h e c k th e s ta tu s o n ” T re jo . ¶24 . T he dange ri n expan ding t his com m uni ty car et aki ng f unct i on t o appl y t o governm ent al se a rc h e s a n d se izu re s w h e re tra ffic sto p s h a v e b e e n m a d e in th e in ter e st o f p u b lic s a fe ty is thatof f i cer s w ho have no r eas onabl e bel i ef thatther e i s an i m m i nentthr eatof dangert o t he

### 14

d riv e r o r o th e r m e m b e rs o f th e p u b lic w ill b e e m p o w e re d to m a k e tra ffic sto p s o f m o to rists
w ho ha ve n otv i ol a t e d the l a w i n a ny way. Thus , a ny i magi na bl e a c t i vi ty a p ol i ce of f i cer s ubj ect i vel y thi nks coul d pos s i bl y be dange r ous –i ncl udi ng act s t he l egi s l atur e has nots een f i tt o pr ohi bi tby l aw , such as cel l phone use oreat i ng a sandw i ch–w i l l pr ovi de j us t i f i cat i on f ora pol i ce st op . I ndeed, i ti s the l egi s l atur e’ s cons t i tut i onal r es pons i bi l i ty t o deci de
w h e th e r su c h a c tiv iti e s a re to b e d e e m e d th re a ts to p u b lic s a fe ty . It i s n o t th e ro le o f th is C our tt o l egal i ze pol i ce s t ops of m ot or i s t s w ho have ne i thercomm i t t ed som e vi ol at i on of e s ta b lis h e d tr a ff

ic la w n o r a re th re a te n e d b y s o m e im m in e n tly d a n g e ro u s s itu a tio n . ¶25. T he r eas onabl enes s of tr af f i c s t ops s houl d cont i nue t o be a nal yzed undertr adi t i onal Four th A m endmentj ur i s prudence . “Tem por ary det ent i on of i ndi vi dual s du ri ng the s t op of an aut om obi l e by the pol i ce, even i f onl y f ora br i ef

p eri od an d f

ora l i m i t ed purpos e, c o n s titu te s a ‘s e iz u re ’ o f ‘ p e rs o n s ’” u n d e r t h e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. W hr e n v. U

. S. , 51 7 U. S. 8 0 6 , 8 0 9 - 8 1 0 , 1 1 6 S . Ct . 1 7 6 9 , 1 7 7 2 1 3 5 L . E d . 2 d 8 9 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ( c i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d ) . “ An aut om obi l e s t op i s . . . s ubj ectt o the cons t i tut i onal i m per at i ve thati tnotbe ‘ unr eas onabl e’
u n d e r th e c ir c u m sta n c e s. A s a g e n e ra l m a tter, th e d e c isio n to sto p a n a u to m o b ile is
r eas onabl e w her e the pol i ce ha ve pr obabl e ca use to b el i eve thata tr af f i c vi ol at i on has occurr ed. ” I

d. at810 ( ci t i ng D elaw are v. P rou se , 4 4 0 U. S. 6 4 8 , 6 5 9 , 9 9 S . Ct . 1 3 9 1 , 5 9 L. E d . 2 d 6 6 0 (1 9 7 9 ); P e n n s y lv a n ia v. Mimms , 434 U . S. 106, 109, 98 S. Ct . 330, 54 L . E d. 2d 3 3 1 (1 9 7 7 )) . ¶2 6. N o one, of cour s e, re as onabl y coul d quest i on a pol i c e of f i c e r ’ s r i ght–i ndeed, o b li g ati o n – to stop a m o tori st w h en the o ffi ce r re a so n a b ly pe r cei ves an im m ine nt thr eatof h arm t o th e m o tori st o r othe r m em b ers o f th e p u b li c. E x am p les w o u ld inc lud e the o ffi ce r’s

### Jus ti ceRandolph as ks: “Can it fa irly beargu ed that a

poli ceoff

ic er may not s top 35 

### a deliv ery tru ck w ith anunsecured cargo d oo r inth e interest of p ub lic safety? Aveh icle with an unde r- inf

late d tire ? An RV with an unlatc hed hatc h cove r f la pping in thebre ez e? ” Since all of th ese illustratio ns unquestio nab ly p resent threats of imminent dan ger, I am g rateful to my e st ee me d col le aguefor provi ding a dditiona l s upport for my pos ition. 15 obs ervi ng l ug nut s mi s s i ng f r om a ve hi cl e’ s w heel , a n a ut om obi l e tr avel i ng t ow ar d a w as hedoutbr i dge, orgas ol i ne l eaki ng f r om a ca ro rt ruck. In c as es w hen s uch s t op i s chal l enged, 35 the of f i cerm us tes t abl i s h t o t he s at i s f act i on of a j udge thathi s orherper cept i on of i m m i nent th re a t o f h a rm w a s re a s o n a b le . ¶27 . In the inst ant cas e, the o ff i cer conced ed that , atthe ti m e of the st op , no probab l e cause exi s t ed thatl ed hi m t o bel i eve a tr af f i c vi ol at i on had occ urr ed. A tthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng, O f f i cerPi cau t es t i f

i ed thathe ha d s t opped T r ej o on s us pi ci on that Tre j o could be f

at i gued ori nt oxi cat ed, gi ven t hatT r ej o w oul d notyi el d t he l ef tl ane of t r avel t o Pi cau. Pi cau t es t i f i ed that , w hi l e dr i ver s ar e expe ct ed t o obey t r af f i c si gns , such as thos e on mul t i
- l ane hi ghw ays thatdi r ects l ow - m ovi ng tr af f i c t o dri ve i n t he ri ghtl ane, he admi t t ed thathe di d nots t op T r ej o bas ed on hi s f

ai l ur e t o obey suc h a tr af f i c s i gn. A tno t i m e w as T r ej o dr i vi ng err at i cal l y, overthe maxi m um s peed l i m i t , or undert he m i ni m um s peed l i m i t , and the r ecor d i ncl udes
n o e v id e n c e o f a n y im m in e n t th re a t o f d a n g e r. ¶28. I add thati ti s notdi f f i cul tt o thi nk of

ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch a pe ace of f i cer m ay be j us t i f i ed i n s t oppi ng and cha r gi ng a mot or i s tf orprol onged pr es ence i n a fa rl ef t , ori ns i de, l ane of a s tr eetorhi ghw ay of

f ourormore l anes . M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 63- 3- 603( d) ( R ev. 2 0 0 4 ) re a d s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt, as fo llo w s: W heneve ra ny r oadw ay has be en di vi ded i nt o thr ee ( 3) orm or e cl ear l y m arked la n e s fo r t ra ff

ic . . .

### 16

U pon al l r oadw ays any vehi cl e pr ocee di ng atl es s t han the norm al s peed of tr af f i c atthe t i m e and pl ace and underthe condi t i ons then exi s t i ng shall be dr i ven i n the r i ght
- hand l ane then avai l abl e f ortr af f i c, oras cl os e as pr act i cabl e t o the r i ght
- hand curb or edg e of the r oadw ay, exce ptw hen overt aki ng and pas s i ng anothervehi cl e pr ocee di ng i n the s ame d i r ect i on or w hen pr epar i ng f

ora l ef tturn atan i nt er s ect i on ori nt o a pr i vat e r oad or dr i vew ay. A l though w e do notf

i nd i n the pr es entcas e a c l earvi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 63- 3- 603( d) , t oday’ s deci s i on s houl d notbe r ead t o di m i ni s h the val i di ty or i m por t ance of thats t atut e, w hi ch, i f

vi ol at ed, s houl d be e nf or ced. T hi s s t atut e pl ai nl y es t abl i s hes thatt he f ar - i ns i de l ane i s i nt ended mai nl y f orpa s s i ng. I n thi s cas e, even i f T r ej o had vi ol at ed Sect i on 6 3 -3 -6 0 3 (d ), th e a rre stin g o ffic e r a rticu late d n o a w a re n e ss o f th is s tatu te’ s e x iste n c e , an d , in any even t , did not r el y o n itas j ust i fi cat i on forst op ping the T rej o veh i cl e. If he h ad, this case m i ghthave be en dec i ded di f f er ent l y. Such a s t op w oul d ha ve r equi r ed thi s C our tt o i nt erpr et S e c tio n 6 3 -3 -6 0 3 (d ) i n lig h t o f t h e fa c ts p re s e n te d . ¶ 2 9 . A c c o rd in g ly , th e re e x ists n o re a so n a b le b a sis to ju stify th e o ffic e r’s sto p o f th e T re jo vehi cl e, and thus , no pr obabl e ca us e. I agree w i th the pl ur al i ty’ s deci s i on t o r ever s e and re n d e r th e c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e fo r p o ss e ss io n o f a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e w ith in ten t to d istrib u te; h o w e v e r, I c a n n o t jo in in its a d o p tio n o f th e c o m m u n ity ca re tak in g fu n c tio n a s it appl i es t o t r af

f i c s t ops by pol i ce. DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.C om par e thi s t o W i ns t on C hur chi l l ’ s s t at ementt o Par l i amentthat“[ t ] hi s i s one of 36 th o s e c a s e s in w h ic h th e im a g in a tio n is b a ff le d b y th e fa c ts .” 

### 17 R A N D O L P H , JU S T IC E , C O N C U R R IN G IN P A R T A N D D ISS E N T IN G IN PART: ¶30. I concur w i th the adopt i on of the “comm uni ty car et aki ng” doctr i ne, but di s s ent t o t he pl ur al i ty’ s r es ul t , w hi ch does notappl y i t . T he pl ur al i ty pr es ent s an exc el l ents ynops i s of t he

“ c o m m u n ity c a re tak in g ” d o c trin e a n d h a s c ra fte d a c lea r, w o rk a b le s tan d a rd fo r its app l i cat i on . A sses si ng the ex erci se of a “com m un i ty caret aking” f un ct i on on a case-by-case basi s , by obj ect i ve r eas onabl enes s under“the t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s , ” i s a s ound a p p ro a c h a c c o rd in g b a lan c e to th e in ter e sts o f p u b lic sa fe ty a n d in d iv id u a l F o u rth A m en d m en t pro tecti o n s. (P lur. O p . at ¶ 1 4 ). ¶31 . D es pi t e the pl ur al i ty’ s bal ance d, comm on-s ense ap proach , Just i ce K i t chen s r ej ect s the

“ a d o p ti o n o f

t h e c o m m u n ity c a re ta k in g fu n c tio n a s it a p p lie s to tr a ff ic s to p s b y p o lic e [,]” pr edi cat ed upon “i m agi nabl e ac t i vi ty a pol i ce of f i cers ubj ect i vel y thi nks coul d pos s i bl y be danger ous . . . . ” ( K i t chens O p. at¶¶ 6, 11) . J us t i ce K i t chens ’ s opi ni on i gnor es t he 36
s t andar d of

obj ect i ve r eas onabl enes s underthe “t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s ” cha m pi oned by the pl ur al i ty and the U ni t ed S t at es S upre m e C our t . ( Pl ur . O p. at¶ 14) ( ci t i ng B r i gham Cit y, U tah v. S tu art , 547 U . S. 398, 404, 126 S. C t . 1943, 164 L . Ed. 2d 650 ( 2006) ( r ej ect i ng the of f i cer ’ s s ubj ect i ve i nt ent ) ) . C an i tf ai r l y be ar gued thata pol i ce of f i cerm ay nots t op a d e liv e ry tru c k w ith a n u n se c u re d ca rg o d o o r in the inte re st o f p u b lic s a fe ty ? A v e h icle w ith an u n d er-infl ated ti re? A n R V w ith a n u n lat ch ed h atch co v er flapp ing in the b ree ze ? W h ere i s the cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on orput at i ve 42 U ni t ed St at es C ode Sect i on 1983 cl ai m i n s uch

### An imminent dange r doe s not

haveto beof themome nt, but rather “[ a] bout t o occ ur 37 

### at any m ome nt : Im

pending.”Webs te r’ s I I Ne w Coll egeDic ti onar y 553 (2001) . 18 ca ses? A lth o u g h n o im m inen t haz ard m ay ex ist , if leftu n ch ec k ed , ea ch co u ld h av e d ir e c o n se q u e n c e s fo r th e tra v e lin g p u b lic. W h e th e r o n e c o n sid e rs h is s c e n a rio s o r m in e , all 37 ill u stra te w h y a c a se -b y -c a se e x a m in a tio n o f th e a p p lica b ili ty o f “ c o m m u n ity c a re tak in g ” in a tr af f i c- s t op cont exti s r equi r ed. T he appr opr i at e i nqui ry by the tr i al courti s w hethert he s t op w as obj ect i vel y r eas onabl e, gi ven the t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng t he condi t i on(s) o bs erved by an of f i cer , thatthe dr i ver , occupa nt s , orotherm ember s of the tr avel i ng publ i c w er e enda nger ed. ¶32. I partw ays w i th the pl ur al i ty onl y i ns of aras i tconcl udes thatthe ci r cui tcourt “err ed” i n fi ndi ng t hatt he subj ectt r af f i c st op w as “r eas onabl e” bec aus e “the f act s pr es ent ed . . . do notj us t i f y a r eas onabl e bel i ef

th a t T re jo n e e d e d h e lp o r t h a t th e p u b lic w a s e n d a n g e re d . .

. . ” (P lu r. O p . at ¶ ¶ 1 , 1 5 -1 6 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e p lu ra lity ’s u lti m a te f in d in g is under gi r ded by a pr es uppos i t i on of de novo r evi ew , des pi t e the f actthat“[ i ] n r evi ew i ng t he den i al of a m oti on t o sup press , w e m ustde term ine w hetherthe tr i al cou rt ’s fi nd i ng s, con si deri ng the t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s , ar e s upport ed by s ub s tant i alcr edi bl e ev i dence .” D e lk e r v . S ta te , 50 So. 3d 300, 303 ( M i s s . 2010) ( quot i ng Mo o re v. S ta te , 933 So. 2d 910, 9 1 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 )) ( em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e circu itjud g e rec eive d cre d ible ev iden ce to su p p o rt hi s f i ndi ng thatthe subj ecttr af f i c s t op w as i ni t i at ed “f

ors af ety r eas ons [ , ] ” a di s t i nctand s epar at e undert aki ng f

r om a Fourth A m endment sei zure ba s ed upon pr obabl e ca us e or re a so n a b le su sp icio n o f c rim in a l ac tiv ity . S p e c ifica lly , P ico u p re se n ted th e c irc u it co u rt w ith

“ o b je c tiv e , sp e c if

ic , a n d a rt ic u la b le fa c ts ” fr o m “ a tra in e d a n d e x p e ri e n c e d p o lic e o ff ic e r[ ,]”

### Using exc lus ionary r ulest andards by way of ana logy, how exa ctly d id the 38 

### “c onst abl e . . . blunde [r ] ” he re ? Del ker , 50 So. 3d at

306 (quoting Peo

ple v. D efore , 242 N.Y. 13, 21, 150 N.E. 585, 587 ( 1926) ( opini on of the Cour t by Cardoz o, J .) ). 19 i nf or m ed by hi s “i nf

er ence and deduc t i on[ , ] ” i n supportof hi s per cept i on t hatt he dr i verm ay n e e d a id , a s o p p o s e d to th e s u s p ic io n o f c ri m in a l a c tiv ity . S tate v. Marx , 289 K an. 657, 662, 2 1 5 P .3 d 6 0 1 (2 0 0 9 ); S ta te v . B a k e w e ll , 730 N . W . 2d 335, 339 ( N eb. 2007) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons o m itt e d ). T h e circ u it ju d g e fo u n d tha t th e traff ic s to p b a se d the re o n w a s o bje c tiv e ly
r eas onabl e, i n t he i nt er es tof pr ot ect i ng bot h t he dr i verand t he sa f ety of the gene r al publ i c. 38 See P eople v. McD onough , 2 3 9 I ll. 2 d 2 6 0 , 2 7 2 , 9 4 0 N .E .2 d 1 1 0 0 (2 0 1 0 ). See al s o State v. Mitch e ll , 498 N . W . 2d 691, 694 ( I ow a 1993) (“ [ t ] he St at e has a val i d i nt er es ti n the s af ety of its c iti z e n s o n its ro a d s a n d h ig h w a y s.” ). A s I w o u ld fin d th a t th e c irc u it co u rt d id n o t er r in c on c l ud i ng tha tTr e

j o was s t op pe d “ f

ors a f e ty r e a s on s [ , ] ” the “ c omm un i ty c a r e t a ki ng” d o c tr in e s h o u ld a p p ly to th e s u b je c t t ra ff ic s to p . U n d e r “ th e to ta lity o f t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s ,” the ci r cui tcourt ’ s concl us i on w as “s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al cr edi bl e evi dence . ” D el ker , 50 So. 3d at303 (quot i ng Moo re , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d at 9 1 4 ). A c c o rd in g ly , I co n c lu d e th a t th e c irc u it courtdi d noterri n denyi ng T r ej o’ s “M ot i on t o S uppr es s , ” pr emi s ed upon t he “s af ety” s t op. ¶3 3 . B ec au se I w o u ld re v erse the d ec isi o n o f the C o u rto f A p p ea ls an d reinstate an d affirm the rul i ng o f t he ci r cui tcourtdenyi ng T r ej o’ s “M ot i on t o Suppr es s , ” I r es pect f ul l y concur i n adopt i on of

the “c om m uni ty car et aki ng” doctr i ne, butdi s s entas t o the r es ul tr eac hed by the pl ur al i ty. P I ER CE , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.