Opinion ID: 163905
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fourth Amendment Challenges to the Traffic Stop and Arrest

Text: 34 The first issue raised in Mr. Marshall's appellate brief is the validity of the traffic stop and arrest under the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Marshall concedes that the perceived traffic violation may have provided sufficient grounds for the initial stop, but maintains that Officer Porter did not have justifiable reasons to arrest and seize the plaintiff/appellant. 35 Probable cause exists where facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that an offense has been or is being committed. Karr v. Smith, 774 F.2d 1029, 1031 (10th Cir.1985). In granting summary judgment with respect to this claim, the district court explained: Defendants have presented evidence that Officer Porter's decision to stop Mr. Marshall was based on an observed, though unspecified, traffic violation, which provides sufficient grounds to support the initial stop. Marshall at 4, App. at 369. Moreover, the court went on, it is undisputed that after Officer Porter activated his emergency lights, Mr. Marshall continued to drive and did not pull over until he had reached his neighborhood, approximately two miles away, which provides solid grounds to cite Mr. Marshall for resisting or evading an officer. Id. at 5, App. at 370. We agree. 36 Whether or not Mr. Marshall failed to obey the stop sign, which is disputed, the actual stop did not occur until after Mr. Marshall had driven for two miles without responding to the police officer's emergency lights. This behavior violated N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-22-1 (forbidding willfully refusing to bring a vehicle to a stop when given a visual or audible signal to stop, whether by hand, voice, emergency light, flashing light, siren, or other signal, by a uniformed officer in an appropriately marked police vehicle), and constituted probable cause to support the stop, the citation, and the arrest. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001) (holding that even a minor violation is sufficient cause to justify an arrest). 37 Mr. Marshall does not deny that he drove two miles before stopping, but he mistakenly maintains that his delay in stopping was excusable because he needed to get to a place that he felt safe before complying with the officer's order to stop. That is not the law. Drivers are required to respond promptly when a police officer signals them to stop. Neither belief in innocence nor apprehensions regarding the police justify failure to obey a lawful order. Cf. United States v. Villa-Chaparro, 115 F.3d 797, 802 (10th Cir.1997) (driver's failure to stop in response to flashing police lights contributes to a finding of reasonable suspicion).