Opinion ID: 1023116
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Validity of Pursuit and Stop

Text: The first issue raised pursuant to Anders is Morton’s contention that the officers’ pursuit and eventual seizure of Morton violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Morton maintains that, although the officers averred that they initiated the traffic stop because of the Cadillac’s brake light, this was merely pretextual as the pursuit and the stop were truly motivated by their suspicions that Morton had engaged in drug trafficking. 4 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). - 14 - Counsel correctly asserts that this argument has no merit. Whatever subjective intent the officers may have had at the beginning of their pursuit is irrelevant to determining whether they had probable cause to stop Morton’s vehicle. United States v. Whren, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996); see also United States v. Hassan El, 5 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 1993) (“[W]hen an officer observes a traffic offense or other unlawful conduct, he or she is justified in stopping the vehicle under the Fourth Amendment.”). Having observed the malfunctioning brake light, the officers had ample probable cause to initiate the stop. Accordingly, there was no Fourth Amendment violation.