Opinion ID: 170190
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legality of the Initial Stop

Text: Defendants first challenge the lawfulness of the initial stop. Because a traffic stop itself represents a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, the stop must be justified at its inception. United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215, 1220 (10th Cir. 2001). A traffic stop is justified at its inception if the officer has either (1) probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred or (2) a reasonable articulable suspicion that `this particular motorist violated any one of the multitude of applicable traffic and equipment regulations of the jurisdiction.' United States v. Ozbirn, 189 F.3d 1194, 1197-98 (10th Cir.1999) (internal citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d 783, 787 (10th Cir.1995) (en banc)); see also United States v. Valenzuela, 494 F.3d 886, 888 (10th Cir.2007). Trooper Jeffery stopped Defendants for driving a California vehicle without displaying a front license plate. The district court concluded, Jeffery's reliance on the apparent (as well as actual) violation of California law in failing to display two license plates was based on reasonable articulable suspicion. 07-4063 Aplt.App. 127. We agree. [1] The relevant provision of the California Vehicle Code requires that the state issue to the owner two partially or fully reflectorized license plates for a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle. Cal. Veh.Code § 4850(a). And [w]hen two license plates are issued by the department for use upon a vehicle, they shall be attached to the vehicle for which they were issued, one in the front and the other in the rear. Id. § 5200(a); see also United States v. Ramstad, 308 F.3d 1139, 1146 (10th Cir.2002) (California law appears to require both a front and rear license plate. . . .) (citing Section 5200); United States v. McRae, 81 F.3d 1528, 1530, 1533 (10th Cir.1996) (upholding initial stop where a trooper pulled over a California vehicle for the stated reason that both California and Utah require vehicles to have a front license plate); People v. Saunders, 38 Cal.4th 1129, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 136 P.3d 859, 863-64 (2006) (agreeing with our analysis in Ramstad that California requires passenger vehicles to display both license plates). Consistent with California statutory law and our precedent, Jeffery's Utah patrolissued license plate chart indicated California requires vehicles to display both front and rear license plates. It is undisputed the 4Runner did not display the front license plate. And even though Jeffery admittedly did not know whether his chart, issued in 1998, reflected current law in 2005, his suspicion of a traffic violation was objectively reasonable and did not represent a mistake of law. Consequently, Jeffery was justified in stopping Defendants' vehicle because he had a reasonable articulable suspicion of a traffic or equipment violation. Defendants argue Jeffery made a mistake of law in concluding California required two license plates. A trooper's failure to understand the plain and unambiguous law he is charged with enforcing . . . is not objectively reasonable. United States v. DeGasso, 369 F.3d 1139, 1144 (10th Cir.2004). Defendants stress California Vehicle Code Section 5200(a) by its terms applies only to vehicles for which two license plates are issued. And [w]hen only one license plate is issued for use upon a vehicle, it shall be attached to the rear thereof. Cal. Veh.Code § 5200(b). Defendants thus argue Trooper Jeffery could not, have known the 4Runner needed to display two license plates until he stopped the vehicle and Aguilar-Banuelos produced the front license plate. Defendants' argument on this score is unpersuasive. They fail to explain under which circumstances California would issue only one license plate to a passenger vehicle. Indeed, Sections 4850(a) and 5200(a) obviously mandate all vehicles except motorcycles receive and display two license plates. In the absence of contrary California authority, see Saunders, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 136 P.3d at 863-64, we continue to follow our precedent in Ramstad and McRae and construe the California Vehicle Code as requiring two license plates for passenger, cars. In sum, because Jeffery observed the 4Runner in violation of the California license plate requirement, he had sufficient justification for the initial stop. [2]