Section 6.3 Law Violations

• Library: DWI 2014

The most common and obvious basis for a traffic stop arises when a motorist violates one of the many traffic laws in Missouri. An officer can initiate a traffic stop when an operator commits a violation of the traffic laws or when unusual operation of the motor vehicle is observed by a police officer. State v. Jackson, 186 S.W.3d 873 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006). A routine traffic stop based on a violation of state traffic laws is a justifiable warrantless seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Id. To comport with constitutional authority, the police officer initiating the stop must be doing no more than legally permitted and objectively authorized to do. Id. at 879.

A vehicle observed traveling onto the outside shoulder of the road is sufficient to warrant a traffic stop. State v. Pesce, 325 S.W.3d 565, 570 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). A vehicle weaving toward the center line provided sufficient basis for an investigatory stop. State v. Malaney, 871 S.W.2d 634, 637 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994). But see State v. Beck, No. SD 32651, 2013 WL 5524826 (Mo. App. S.D. Oct. 7, 2013). In Beck, an officer observed the driver of a pickup truck driving over the fog line separating the shoulder of the road from the driving lane. Based on that observation, the officer initiated a traffic stop, and during the stop, the officer conducted a DWI investigation leading to the driver’s arrest. Id. at *1.

Citing State v. Roark, 229 S.W.3d 216 (Mo App. W.D. 2007); State v. Mendoza, 75 S.W.3d 842 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002); and State v. Abeln, 136 S.W.3d 803 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004), the court reaffirmed a Western District holding in Roark that when the only articulable fact is crossing a fog line, that alone does not support reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. Id.

When the observed behavior does not constitute a law violation, counsel should be alert to whether the behavior constitutes the particularized facts necessary for reasonable suspicion.

For another example of a case when the officer was not justified in making a stop, see State v. Schmutz, 100 S.W.3d 876, 878–80 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003), in which an officer on patrol observed a truck pull into the parking lot of a closed shopping center in the early morning hours and park for several minutes, then leave “in a little bit of a hurry.” Id. at 878–80. The officer testified at a suppression hearing that he was “suspicious” but admitted that he observed no traffic violations and the truck did nothing unusual, but he followed the truck and decided to pull it over for the sole reason that he wanted to identify the driver and find out what he was doing in the parking lot at that hour. Id. During the stop, the officer detected an odor of intoxicants and conducted a DWI investigation that resulted in the driver’s arrest.

In Schmutz, 100 S.W.3d 876, the officer testified that he was “suspicious” but could point to no specific facts that would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the driver was involved in criminal activity. Rather, the officer acted only on his vague “suspicion” and nothing else. Id. The Schmutz court reversed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence. Applying a “totality of the circumstances” analysis, the court found that...