Court Opinion

ID: 9843764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:43:10.195821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:54.682690
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 17] I dissent for two reasons. First, the majority, rather than examine all the facts in their totality, has chosen to disregard facts that are critical to the analysis of whether Officer Wise had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Johnson’s vehicle. Second, the totality of the circumstances demonstrates Officer Wise had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring. Therefore, I would reverse the district court and reinstate the decision of the administrative hearing officer.
I
[¶ 18] The majority has disregarded facts that are critical to a reasonable and articulable analysis, specifically that Johnson had created a safety hazard and Officer Wise relied on his experience and training before stopping Johnson. The majority correctly notes, at ¶ 9, that “[t]he reasonable suspicion standard must be objective and is based on the totality of the circumstances.” Kappel v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 1999 ND 213, ¶ 7, 602 N.W.2d 718. The majority’s recitation of the facts, however, does not provide the totality of what Officer Wise considered before he stopped Johnson.
[¶ 19] The majority notes, at ¶ 2, that the events leading up to the stop occurred early in the morning of August 30, 2005, at approximately 12:43 a.m. Officer Wise testified he was traveling northbound on Second Avenue West near the avenue’s intersection with Second Street in Williston at *591the posted speed limit of twenty-five miles per hour. According to Officer Wise, he noticed another northbound vehicle traveling slowly ahead of him. Officer Wise testified he rapidly caught up to the other vehicle, approximately at the intersection of Second Avenue West and Ninth Street, and had to brake to avoid a collision because the other vehicle was traveling more slowly than Officer Wise had first believed. According to Officer Wise, he paced Johnson for the next two blocks at eight to ten miles per hour and stopped him after they crossed the intersection at Eleventh Street. Assuming Officer Wise was driving at twenty-five miles per hour and Johnson was driving at ten miles per hour, Johnson would have traveled approximately three blocks during the time Officer Wise drove the seven blocks it took him to catch up to Johnson. Officer Wise then observed Johnson driving at eight to ten miles per hour for another two blocks before initiating the traffic stop. Therefore, Officer Wise would have observed Johnson driving well below the speed limit for approximately five blocks.
[¶ 20] The majority, at ¶ 14, states, “It is not that unusual to encounter a vehicle driving through a residential or densely populated area at similar speeds which are slower than the posted speed limit.” The record, however, contains no evidence to support this statement. Perhaps a driver might commonly slow to below the speed limit for a short distance in an attempt to find someone’s home or business, but those are not the facts presented. Johnson was driving eight to ten miles per hour for five blocks very early in the morning. There is nothing in the record to reflect that his behavior was anything but unusual.
[¶21] Officer Wise testified he knew through his training and experience that rapid braking, swerving, line-crossing, and traveling well under the posted speed limit are all signs of impaired driving. He also testified that driving too slowly creates a safety hazard for others and that, in his experience, drivers going that slowly have contributed to rear-end accidents. Thus, Officer Wise had the following facts on which to rely when deciding whether to stop Johnson: Johnson was driving very slowly after midnight, and Officer Wise’s training and experience taught him that very slow driving is a sign of impairment and that driving extremely slowly may constitute a safety hazard. After considering all the facts, one can see that Officer Wise relied on more than Johnson’s slow speed and the time of day before making the traffic stop, contrary to what the majority claims.
II
[¶ 22] An examination of the totality of the circumstances Officer Wise relied on demonstrates that he had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring when he made the traffic stop. The majority, at ¶ 8, notes this Court has discussed three different events that give an officer reasonable and articu-lable suspicion, including “when the officer directly observed illegal activity.” As the Ohio Court of Appeals has noted, however, “[I]t is a common misperception that, in order to effectuate a Terry stop, the police must actually observe the person engaging in criminal activity.” State v. Frank, Nos. C-990079, C-990080, C-990081, 2000 WL 192132, at *3 (Ohio Ct.App. Feb.18, 2000). We have also acknowledged that actual illegal activity is not required: “the reasonable suspicion standard does not require an officer to see a motorist violating a traffic law or to rule out every potential innocent excuse for the behavior in question before stopping a vehicle for investigation.” Kappel, 1999 ND 213, ¶ 10, 602 N.W.2d 718. In Kappel, we relied on the United States Supreme Court’s statement *592in United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981), that investigating officers may rely on common sense when deciding whether to stop a vehicle:
The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain common sense conclusions about human behavior; jurors as factfin-ders are permitted to do the same — and so are law enforcement officers. Finally, the evidence thus collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement.
Cortez, 449 U.S. at 418, 101 S.Ct. 690 (emphasis added). Therefore, Officer Wise was allowed to take all the circumstances known to him and rely on his common sense and experience when he decided to stop Johnson.
[¶ 23] Frank involved a traffic stop that occurred after a law enforcement officer had observed a vehicle traveling fifteen to twenty miles per hour in a twenty-five to thirty-five mile-per-hour zone. Frank, 2000 WL 192132, at *1. The officer had been notified by another officer that the driver might be impaired. Id. The officer also observed other cars being forced to pass the slow-moving vehicle. Id. The Ohio Court of Appeals noted Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), did not involve any overtly illegal activity:
Terry itself did not involve any overt illegal activity; rather, all the detective observed in that case was the defendant and his confederates loitering outside a store in the middle of the day, pausing to stare in the window and then conferring among themselves. Notwithstanding the perfectly legal nature of their presence in front of the store, the United States Supreme Court held that an experienced detective was justified in suspecting the confederates of planning a daylight robbery and was therefore entitled to stop and ask them questions. It is important to remember, in this regard, that a Terry stop is an investigatory tool and does not require certitude, or probability, but only a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific, articulable facts, that criminal activity is afoot.
Frank, 2000 WL 192132, at *3. The court held the officer’s traffic stop was based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion. Id. at *5.
[¶24] In State v. Baudhuin, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held a law enforcement officer was justified in stopping a driver who was driving slowly and impeding traffic. 141 Wis.2d 642, 416 N.W.2d 60, 64 (1987). The officer stopped the driver after pacing the driver’s speed at no more than seventeen miles per hour in a twenty-five mile-per-hour zone at 2:00 a.m. Id. at 61. The officer was directly behind the driver, and other vehicles had begun to back up behind the officer’s car because of the slow-moving vehicle. Id. The officer’s subjective reason for stopping the ear was to learn whether there was something mechanically wrong with the driver’s car. Id. The court held the officer’s subjective intent was not relevant because the objective facts presented a reasonable and articula-ble suspicion of criminal activity. Id. at 63.
[¶ 25] The majority, at ¶ 12, rejects the State’s argument that Johnson was impeding traffic and notes that Johnson was not actually impeding traffic at the time of the traffic stop. This presumes, however, that Johnson must actually have violated the statute that prohibits impeding traffic before a stop could be justified. This is not *593required. If actual criminal activity were required, the reasonable-and-articulable-suspicion standard would not be necessary because the law enforcement officer would have probable cause to arrest the person. Frank, 2000 WL 192132, at *3.
[¶ 26] The majority cites State v. Sarhegyi, 492 N.W.2d 284 (N.D.1992), and State v. Robertsdahl, 512 N.W.2d 427 (N.D.1994), for support that the time of day of the stop was irrelevant. In Sarhe-gyi, however, the only other facts the officer had to rely on were the defendant’s location in the lot of a closed business and the defendant’s attempt to move when approached by the officer. 492 N.W.2d at 285. And in Robertsdahl, the officer relied only on the occurrence of several burglaries in the general area and his unfamiliarity with the defendant’s vehicle. 512 N.W.2d at 427.
[¶ 27] In this case, Johnson’s actions are more suspicious. Johnson was driving well below the speed limit early in the morning of August 30. Officer Wise, relying on his experience, testified that driving below the speed limit is a sign of impaired driving and that Johnson was a safety risk because his slow speed could contribute to a traffic accident. Officer Wise observed Johnson driving well below the speed limit, observed a present safety risk, and relied on his experience that driving below the speed limit is a sign of impairment. These facts are an objective, common-sense manifestation that could lead a reasonable officer, or any reasonable person for that matter, to suspect potential criminal activity. Although the officer’s vehicle was impeded, other vehicles actually being impeded is not required for an officer to have a reasonable investigatory suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Officer Wise had a reasonable and articulable suspicion, and the traffic stop was justified.
[¶ 28] By focusing individually on Johnson’s slow speed and individually on the time of day, the majority removes these facts from the totality of the circumstances that Officer Wise weighed when deciding to stop Johnson. In doing so, the majority fails to follow the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis required by our caselaw.
Ill
[¶ 29] I would reverse the district court and reinstate the department’s order.
[¶ 30] Dale V. Sandstrom