United States v. Burkley
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 861, 513 F. 3d 1183, 2008 WL 134208 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop when a driver fails to signal a turn in violation of a state statute that requires signaling if other traffic "may be affected," and the officer's vehicle is in close proximity to the driver's vehicle.
Facts:
- A police officer in a marked patrol car was driving approximately one-and-a-half car lengths behind Defendant's vehicle.
- Defendant made a right turn from a highway onto an access road for an apartment complex without using his turn signal.
- After entering the complex, Defendant began using his turn signal while navigating bends and curves in the road.
- The officer initiated a traffic stop, and upon approaching the vehicle, smelled a strong odor of marijuana.
- Defendant, who is paralyzed from the waist down, admitted to smoking marijuana and informed the officers he had a weapon in the car.
- While retrieving Defendant's wheelchair from the back seat, officers observed two handguns within his reach.
- A subsequent search of Defendant and his vehicle yielded 157 grams of marijuana, a digital scale, multiple cell phones, ammunition, and $242,250 in cash, much of which was vacuum-sealed.
Procedural Posture:
- In the U.S. District Court, Defendant filed pre-trial motions to suppress evidence from the traffic stop and to sever the charges, which the court denied.
- A jury found Defendant guilty on all three counts.
- The district court denied Defendant's motion for acquittal.
- The district court entered a verdict and order of forfeiture against the firearms, ammunition, and currency.
- Defendant was sentenced to a total of 120 months' imprisonment.
- Defendant appealed his convictions, the denial of his motions, and the forfeiture order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer have reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment when a driver fails to signal a turn while being followed by the officer, in a state where signaling is required if other traffic 'may be affected' by the movement?
Opinions:
Majority - McKay, Circuit Judge
Yes, the officer had reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. A driver's failure to signal a turn when a police vehicle is following closely behind creates a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation under a statute requiring a signal when other traffic 'may be affected.' The court interpreted the statutory term 'may' as indicating a 'possibility or probability,' not a certainty, that other traffic would be affected. Because the officer's patrol car was only one-and-a-half car lengths behind Defendant, it was traffic that could potentially be affected by the unsignaled turn. Therefore, the officer's observation of this conduct was sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, justifying the initial stop under the Fourth Amendment and the principles of Terry v. Ohio.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the reasonable suspicion standard for traffic stops based on turn-signal violations, particularly in jurisdictions with statutes using 'may be affected' language. By interpreting 'may' broadly to mean 'potential,' the court lowers the threshold for what constitutes a violation, thereby expanding the grounds upon which officers can legally initiate a stop. This holding reinforces the principle from Whren v. United States that an officer's subjective motivation is irrelevant as long as an objective violation of the law has occurred. Consequently, the ruling provides law enforcement with significant discretion to conduct stops for minor infractions that may lead to the discovery of more serious criminal activity.
