Court Opinion

ID: 9790749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:59:04.959252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:31.357962
License: Public Domain

Steffen, C. J.,
concurring in result only:
I concur in the result of this case only because I am unconvinced that the arresting officer had a lawful basis for stopping Alejandre for twice crossing over the fog line by about “a tire width.” Otherwise, I again register my strong opposition to the majority’s adoption of the “would” test for Nevada as expressed in my special concurrence in Taylor v. State issued on this same date.
I must also add my complete disagreement with the majority’s evaluation of the reasoning in the case of State v. Chapin, 879 P.2d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994), as “persuasive.” In pertinent part, the Chapin court stated that “[tjhe entire purpose of the pretext rule is to deter police from using their lawful authority to detain a person for a minor offense in order to investigate or search for evidence of a more serious offense. . . . We reject this approach because it extinguishes the rule.” Id. at 304. With due respect to the Chapin court, I find their reasoning flawed and unpersuasive.
In effect, Chapin tells us that in this area of criminal investigation, we do not want the police to utilize their training and experience to ferret out serious crime even if they are able to do so constitutionally by effectuating a legal stop for some minor traffic offense. To do so, we are informed, would eliminate the pretext rule. I suggest that if this is what the pretext rule demands, the rule is unsound.
Moreover, if pretext is so offensive (it certainly is not unconstitutional), why do we permit undercover officers to attempt to deal with the drug menace by engaging in the pretext of buying or selling narcotics? Indeed, why is a lawful stop of a motorist for a traffic violation, however minor, more offensive as a pretext than the pretextual drug transaction?
I note that we are not contesting the reasonableness of an arresting officer’s actions after making an arrest for a minor traffic offense. It seems to me that the major area of concern *1244should be whether, pursuant to the pretext, an officer engages in a prolonged fishing expedition in order to confirm his suspicions.