Since the stop was not valid, he argues, all the evidence should be suppressed. Defendant misinterprets both the statute and the pertinent case law in reaching this conclusion. The Court finds that probable cause did exist. Close scrutiny of the statutes involved indicates that Officer Jorgenson had probable cause to stop the vehicle. In the instant case there is no argument that there was a red lens missing from the light on the trailer.
Defendant contends that the stop was illegal since the trailer by law only needed one light.
This argument would have merit if the only basis for stopping the vehicle was because the trailer only had one light. While Officer Jorgenson did not testify at the suppression hearing, the evidence bolsters the propriety of the stop. It reveals two tail lights, one much higher and to the right of the other. The stop itself, the issuance ofthe ticket, and the photograph of the trailer demonstrate not only that Of ficer Jorgenson believed the trailer was not in compliance with the law but also that this belief was reasonable. Sanders argues that since the stop was illegal the subsequent search was tainted.