Opinion ID: 66725
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Probable Cause Argument

Text: “A district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact.” United States v. Zapata, 180 F.3d 1237, 1240 (11th Cir. 1999). We accept the district court’s findings of fact to be true, unless shown to be clearly erroneous, and review the district court’s application of the law to those facts de novo. See id. Factual findings extend to the district court’s credibility determinations, to which we accord considerable deference. See United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002). Additionally, “all facts are construed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party” on the motion to suppress before the district court. United States v. Bervaldi, 226 F.3d 1256, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000). The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by government officials, “and its protections extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S. Ct. 744, 750 (2002). It is well settled, however, that a decision to stop 6 a vehicle is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when an officer has “probable cause to believe that a traffic violation [has] occurred.” United States v. Simmons, 172 F.3d 775, 778 (11th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Strickland, 902 F.2d 937, 940 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that “a police officer may stop a vehicle when there is . . . probable cause to believe that a driver is violating any one of the multitude of applicable traffic and equipment regulations relating to the operation of motor vehicles”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). We have held that the standard for determining whether probable cause exists “is met when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, of which he or she has reasonably trustworthy information, would cause a prudent person to believe, under the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.” Rankin v. Evans, 133 F.3d 1425, 1435 (11th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Georgia law provides that “[a] driver shall not back a vehicle unless such movement can be made with safety and without interfering with other traffic.” O.C.G.A. § 40-6-240(a). This traffic code provision prohibits unsafe backing whether or not the maneuver results in accident or injury. See Collier v. State, 639 S.E.2d 405, 408 (Ga. App. 2006). In this case, the officers stopped Hamilton after observing him reverse his direction of travel by backing his vehicle down a city 7 street for half of a block and then into an intersecting street. Hamilton executed this maneuver at night and on a street with parked cars and light traffic. Given these facts and the magistrate judge’s assessment of the officers’ testimony as “highly credible,” R1-33 at 4, we conclude that probable cause existed for West and Brown to effect the traffic stop.