dahlgren555
Junior Member
I am currently in Arizona. I am researching precedents for my case. I fount this from a California Appeals Court ;
Traffic Stops and Temporary Operating Permits
A police officer initiated a traffic stop because the vehicle he observed had expired registration tags on its license plates. The officer subsequently discovered drugs in the vehicle and arrested the driver. The driver then brought a Fourth Amendment suppression motion. At the ensuing suppression hearing, the officer testified that he would have stopped the vehicle regardless of whether he saw a temporary operating permit displayed on the vehicle. The defense offered testimonial and documentary evidence that a temporary operating permit was in fact displayed. The trial court denied the suppression motion, noting that it did not find the defendant's testimony regarding the temporary operating permit credible.
Division Two of the First District Court of Appeal reversed the denial of the defendant's suppression motion. In so ruling, the Court of Appeal held that under these circumstances the officer had an obligation to at least look for a valid temporary operating permit as he followed the vehicle in question. Without doing so, the officer could not have formed a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was not properly registered.
The unanimous opinion was authored by Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline.
People v. Dean, no. A115164 (Cal.Ct.App. (1st Dist., Div. Two) filed 12/21/07)
Does this precedent apply to Arizona as well ?
thks.
Traffic Stops and Temporary Operating Permits
A police officer initiated a traffic stop because the vehicle he observed had expired registration tags on its license plates. The officer subsequently discovered drugs in the vehicle and arrested the driver. The driver then brought a Fourth Amendment suppression motion. At the ensuing suppression hearing, the officer testified that he would have stopped the vehicle regardless of whether he saw a temporary operating permit displayed on the vehicle. The defense offered testimonial and documentary evidence that a temporary operating permit was in fact displayed. The trial court denied the suppression motion, noting that it did not find the defendant's testimony regarding the temporary operating permit credible.
Division Two of the First District Court of Appeal reversed the denial of the defendant's suppression motion. In so ruling, the Court of Appeal held that under these circumstances the officer had an obligation to at least look for a valid temporary operating permit as he followed the vehicle in question. Without doing so, the officer could not have formed a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was not properly registered.
The unanimous opinion was authored by Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline.
People v. Dean, no. A115164 (Cal.Ct.App. (1st Dist., Div. Two) filed 12/21/07)
Does this precedent apply to Arizona as well ?
thks.
