Opinion ID: 2344127
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Vehicle Stop

Text: It is well established that a traffic stop, regardless of how brief and limited, constitutes a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes, and thus must be reasonable under the circumstances. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); Casas, 900 A.2d at 1133. A stop is reasonable if the officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Whren, 517 U.S. at 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769; see also State v. Bjerke, 697 A.2d 1069, 1072 (R.I.1997) (quoting Whren ). The question of whether a stop is reasonable is almost always fact specific. United States v. Owens, 167 F.3d 739, 748 (1st Cir.1999); see also Casas, 900 A.2d at 1133 (quoting Owens ). We accord deference to the trial justice's findings of historical fact, but we will overturn his or her findings if a defendant's constitutional rights were violated, or if there were material facts that were overlooked or misconstrued. Casas, 900 A.2d at 1129; State v. Foster, 842 A.2d 1047, 1050 (R.I.2004). Because defendants' constitutional rights are affected, we perform de novo review of questions of law. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); see also Casas, 900 A.2d at 1129. Based upon our de novo review of the record in this case, we are of the opinion that Officer Costa was legally justified in stopping the vehicle, under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 13. [8] Parked at a fixed location and from a distance, Officer Costa saw the flag and other obstructions hanging from the Jeep's rearview mirror. The photographs introduced into evidence in this case depict a large obstruction, in the appearance of a Dominican flag and other items, hanging from the Jeep's rearview mirror. After hearing testimony and viewing these photographs, the trial justice determined that [u]nquestionably, in this Court's view, it would interfere with a clear view through the front windshield and that under the applicable Massachusetts statute [Officer Costa] had a lawful right to stop the vehicle. After reviewing the record in this case, including the photographic evidence, we are of the opinion that the vehicle stop was legitimate, that it was warranted by the prohibitions of the statute, and was objectively verifiable. We deem the officer's conclusion that the flag, beads, and cardboard air fresheners impeded the proper operation of the vehicle, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 13, to be both reasonable and supported by the evidence. The record in this case unequivocally demonstrates that a significant portion of the Jeep's windshield was blocked by these items and that these obstructions are of the type that fall within the statute's prohibitions. Quinlan directs our attention to a different statutory provision, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 9D (West 2001), [9] which regulates the use of decals and tinted windows and contains an exception for out-of-state vehicles, and he argues that this is the applicable statute. Alternatively, Quinlan contends that even if Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 13 applies to the facts in this case, there should be an implied exception for out-of-state vehicles. We agree with the hearing justice that Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 9D has no relevance to the case at bar; it was not the provision that Officer Costa relied on when he stopped the Jeep. [10] Accordingly, we are satisfied that the stop was predicated on Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 13 and that this provision applies to out-of-state vehicles as well as to vehicles registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Both Quinlan and Collins refer to Commonwealth v. Brazeau, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 65, 831 N.E.2d 372, 373 (2005), a recent opinion by our learned colleagues on the Massachusetts Court of Appeals. [11] In Brazeau, a motorist was stopped for having objects hanging from the rearview mirror in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 13; the obstruction consisted of two or three small items and a glass prism that measured approximately one square inch. Brazeau, 831 N.E.2d at 373-74. The trial justice in that case erroneously found that a reflection from the prism impeded the driver's vision and denied the motion to suppress. Id. at 373. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the stop was not based on a reflection from the prism, and without such evidence, the court concluded, it was not reasonable that items measuring one square inch that hung from the mirror, could impede a driver's view. Id. at 373-74. Under the facts in that case, the court held that a vehicle stop was not warranted. Id. at 375. We note that in Brazeau, the hanging items were not unusually large and that they were dwarfed by comparison with the generous size of the    windshield. Id. at 374, 375. The Brazeau court held that [h]ad the officer in fact testified to his reliance upon objectively verifiable qualities of the hanging items that made them distracting or that interfered with the driver's view, a different case may have been presented. Id. at 374. In the case at bar, Officer Costa and the trial justice encountered just such a case. Here, the cluster of items hanging from the mirror included a flag that was several inches wide and long, with an inch of fringe on each side. This obstruction spanned from the rearview mirror to the dashboard and also included a thick strand of beads and several cardboard air fresheners. There was testimony from Officer Costa that the obstruction was visible from his traffic post. The photographs introduced establish objectively verifiable evidence that this cluster of material and objects impeded the driver's view and fall within the parameters of the statute. Accordingly, we uphold the constitutionality of the traffic stop in this case. The defendants also challenge the propriety of the officers' actions after the traffic stop. An automobile stop and subsequent investigation must be reasonable under the circumstances, including its purpose and duration. Casas, 900 A.2d at 1133. The question of reasonableness is fact specific, based on the totality of the circumstances. Id. It is well settled that an officer can order the driver and passengers to get out of a lawfully stopped vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 n. 6, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (officer may order driver out of lawfully stopped vehicle); see also Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 415, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997) (extending Mimms to passengers); State v. Milette, 727 A.2d 1236, 1239 (R.I.1999) ( Milette II ) (citing Mimms and Wilson ). Additionally, an officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing [of a vehicle's occupant] in an attempt to discover weapons provided that the officer was able to point to `specific and articulable facts' which warranted a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate. State v. Collodo, 661 A.2d 62, 65 (R.I.1995) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). This Court has determined that pat-down searches were justified for the driver of a speeding vehicle who had no registration and made furtive gestures, State v. Tavarez, 572 A.2d 276, 278 (R.I.1990); as well as for the passenger of a speeding vehicle when the driver had no license or registration and the defendant was fidgeting and not making eye contact, Collodo, 661 A.2d at 66. The vehicle's occupants in the present case were not handcuffed or placed under arrest; they were merely frisked for weapons and asked to stand next to Sergeant Leonard. We are satisfied that the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down frisk for weapons after they had observed furtive and suspicious behavior and after the occupants repeatedly ignored orders to keep their hands where Officer Kerrigan could see them. Because the parties also challenge the propriety and scope of the automobile search, we shall next address the question of their standing to do so.