Interesting pretext traffic stop case. Pretext case law is intriguing because it can reveal deep dark details of traffic law that are never revealed in traffic court.
The law in question was
§ 28-721(B) Driving on right side of roadway... On all roadways, a person driving a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall drive the vehicle in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
The phrases ‘the normal speed of traffic’ and ‘as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway’ should sound familiar to cyclists, since it occurs in the bicyclist-specific AFRAP (As Far Right as Practicable) law, but this isn’t a bicycling case, and in fact it occurred on a freeway with three lanes in each direction. [see other pretext case law cases, some involving bicyclists directly]
Here’s a news article from azcapitoltimes.com written by the prolific Howard Fischer; The case opinion is very clear and well-written and I highly recommend reading that if you are interested in traffic law. State of Arizona v. Alvarez-Soto, that’s a direct download from azcourt.gov, if that goes dead, find it e.g. as Justia.com.
The standard for police to conduct a traffic stop is simply that they have a reasonable suspicion that a law is being broken. Any law. Regardless of what they are actually under suspicion for, in this case, drug or some other cross-border illicit criminal activity. Thus a “pretext” stop. The defendant was actually under suspicion by the officer because the type of car (an older Chevy Malibu), and the registration plate was very recently issued in Nogales (a border town)… but these suspicions are not legal grounds.
The trial court found the stop was legal, and the defendant was as a result convicted of drug trafficking. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed that “reason(ing) that (the officer’s) application of the statute was not objectively reasonable because it would subject all travelers to
‘virtually random seizures.’ ”. (seizure referring to a traffic stop).
The Supreme Court’s (unanimous) decision makes it so — we are now all subject to virtually random seizures while traveling, whether that be by foot, bike or vehicle.
The appeals court decision relies heavily on State v. Livingston, 206 Ariz. 145, 148 ¶ 10 (App. 2003) which is really interesting /important case law that says brief/minor deviations are acceptable and not illegal. In that case a driver was pulled over for “touching the line” (a violation of the law that says a driver must drive within one lane). The Supremes concluded Livingston wasn’t in play here for reasons explained; Livingston remains good law (I guess).
As an aside
This wasn’t contested, at least according to the opinion… I find this sequence highly improbable that the driver would consent to a “canine sniff” after declining a vehicle search:
During this stop, while processing a written warning, (the officer)
asked Defendant about her travel plans and requested her consent to search
the vehicle, which Defendant declined. (the officer) then requested consent to conduct a canine sniff of the vehicle with his canine, Chili, and Defendant
agreed. Chili, trained to detect narcotics, alerted to the driver-side of the
car, leading to a search that uncovered a suitcase in the trunk of the vehicle
containing fifty-five pounds of marijuana
.