6/2/16 In State v. Kyle Andrew Stoll, No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0280, the defendant was charged with an aggravated DUI after a vehicle he was operating was stopped by a deputy sheriff solely for a violation of Arizona Revised Statute 28-931.C.
28-931.C provides:
C. All lighting devices and reflectors mounted on the rear of any vehicle shall display or reflect a red color, except that:
- The stoplight or other signal device may be red, amber or yellow, except on a commercial vehicle, as defined in section 28-2231, the stoplight shall be red and the other signal devices shall be red or amber.
- The light illuminating the license plate or the light emitted by a backup lamp shall be white.
The deputy contended that the light emitted more light than was necessary and therefore violated 28-931.C, because that subsection only permits red or amber lights to otherwise be visible from the rear of the vehicle. The defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence resulting from the stop and in doing so contended the properly working light only emitted light around the license plate and therefore was not in violation of the statute. If the defendant’s argument was correct there would have been no legal basis for the stop of his vehicle and without the evidence resulting from the stop, which would have been just about all the evidence, the case would have to be dismissed.
The trial court initially agreed with the defendant’s argument and granted the motion to suppress. The State then requested the judge reconsider the motion and in doing so contended the officer had made a reasonable mistake about the meaning of 28-931.C, and pursuant to a then-recent Supreme Court case, Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S.___, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014), a reasonable mistake of law on an officer’s part can be used to justify a stop. Basically, that means if an officer stopped a vehicle based on a wrong but what would appear to be reasonable interpretation of a statute then the officer’s actions in stopping a vehicle will be considered legally justified. The idea is officers are not lawyers and should not be penalized for acting in accordance with what appears to be a reasonable interpretation of the law. The trial court then reversed its prior ruling suppressing the evidence. After the defendant was found guilty and was sentenced he appealed, contending that the judge was wrong in reversing its prior order granting the suppression motion.
On appeal the court of appeals reversed the conviction by holding the trial court should not have reversed its decision granting the motion to suppress. In its ruling the court of appeals said 28-931.C regulates the color of the lights only, and not the direction of the light. As long as the light illuminating the license plate is white there is no violation of the statute. The court also said that interpretation was unambiguously clear and there was no basis for saying the officer’s alternative interpretation was reasonable. The court therefore held the stop violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and as such was illegal.
The case may be found at:
https://www.appeals2.az.gov/Decisions/CR20150280opinion.pdf
If you’ve been charged with DUI or another criminal offense, getting help from an experienced and knowledgeable lawyer is one of the best things you can do for your case. Gordon Thompson has been practicing criminal and DUI law since 1979, and has used his vast experience to help countless people charged with DUI and other criminal offenses get the best result. Call Gordon Thompson now, 24/7, so he can put his many years of experience to use and help you get the best result for your DUI or criminal case.
