Opinion ID: 6104581
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reasonable suspicion to stop the car

Text: ¶27 Thompson generally recites the law concerning the propriety of a traffic stop, but he never develops an argument that the trial court erred by finding the stop here proper. He has therefore waived that argument. See Johnson, 247 Ariz. at 194 ¶ 91. ¶28 At any rate, the court did not abuse its discretion because evidence supports a conclusion that Bratz properly stopped Thompson’s car. The Fourth Amendment and article 2, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Law enforcement officers “seize” individuals by temporarily detaining 8 STATE V. THOMPSON Opinion of the Court them during traffic stops. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809–10 (1996); State v. Evans, 237 Ariz. 231, 233 ¶ 1 (2015). To pass constitutional muster, the stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring, even when probable cause is lacking. See Evans, 237 Ariz. at 234 ¶ 7. An officer’s subjective motivation for the stop does not invalidate an otherwise lawful traffic stop. See Whren, 517 U.S. at 812–13. ¶29 The record supports the trial court’s ruling that the stop was justified. Bratz was parked with his drug-detector dog, Leo, in a marked highway patrol car and monitoring traffic on Interstate 40 when Thompson drove by him. Bratz’s attention was drawn by Thompson’s rigid, erect posture, and straight-ahead stare, which Bratz characterized as uncommon, nervous behavior. After Thompson had traveled another half-mile, Bratz followed. Soon, Bratz observed Thompson’s car traveling in the righthand lane between another car and a semi-truck. As the trio approached another patrol car displaying flashing lights and a pulled-over semi-truck in the right-hand emergency lane, all but Thompson pulled into the lefthand lane to safely distance themselves from the stationary vehicles. Thompson neither switched to the left lane, although there was room to do so, nor slowed down. ¶30 Arizona law requires drivers approaching a stationary vehicle displaying flashing lights on the side of the highway to either move to a lane not adjacent to the vehicle or, if doing so would be unsafe, to slow down while passing the vehicle. See A.R.S. § 28-775(E). Bratz saw Thompson violate this law, giving Bratz reasonable suspicion to stop Thompson. The trial court did not err by ruling that the stop was reasonable and therefore justified under the state and federal constitutions. See Whren, 517 U.S. at 812–13; Evans, 237 Ariz. at 234 ¶ 7.