Opinion ID: 2823852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Officer Morelandâs Initial Traffic Stop Was Constitutional

Text: Â¶10Â Â Â Â Â The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV; accord Colo. Const. art. II, Â§ 7. Generally speaking, warrantless searches violate constitutional guarantees because they are presumptively unreasonable. Hill, 929 P.2d at 739. When police obtain evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule ordinarily bars the prosecution from introducing that evidence against the defendant in a criminal case. People v. Gutierrez, 222 P.3d 925, 941 (Colo. 2009); see also Crim. P. 41(e) (providing for the motions procedure to suppress evidence obtained via an unlawful search and seizure). Â¶11Â Â Â Â Â An investigatory stop, including a traffic stop, does not violate the Fourth Amendmentâs protections when there are specific, articulable facts that give rise to an officerâs reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. People v. Vissarriagas, 2012 CO 48, Â¶9. In the context of traffic stops, an officer need only have a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violationâi.e., an objectively reasonable basis to believe that a driver has committed a traffic offenseâin order to pull the driver over. See id.; People v.Â Marquez, 195 P.3d 697, 700 (Colo. 2008). Consequently, an officerâs subjective motives for stopping a driver are irrelevant in determining whether an officer had reasonable suspicion. Vissarriagas, Â¶9. 7 Â¶12Â Â Â Â Â Applying these standards here, we hold that Officer Morelandâs initial traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. It is undisputed that Officer Moreland directly witnessed Vaughn violate the traffic code by making an illegal turn. Officer Moreland had an objectively reasonable basis to stop Vaughn not only because he personally observed this traffic violation, but also because his in-car computer indicated that there was no registration record associated with the vehicleâs license plate. Thus, he had two independent, objectively reasonable bases underlying his suspicion that thetraffic code was being violated or was about to be violated that he was able to articulate to the court. See People v. Arias, 159 P.3d 134, 138 (Colo. 2007). Â¶13Â Â Â Â Â Because we conclude that Officer Morelandâs initial traffic stop was constitutionally permissible, we now consider the propriety of Officer Morelandâs search by examining the validity of both the precipitating arrest and the inventory search itself.