in determining constitutionality of traffic stop, sole inquiry is whether officer had reasonable suspicion that motorist violated traffic and equipment regulations; it is irrelevant whether stop was sufficiently ordinary or routine according to general practice of police department or particular officer making the stop or whether officer may have had other subjective motives for stopping the vehicle
How later courts described this case
- in determining constitutionality of traffic stop, sole inquiry is whether officer had reasonable suspicion that motorist violated traffic and equipment regulations; it is irrelevant whether stop was sufficiently ordinary or routine according to general practice of police department or particular officer making the stop or whether officer may have had other subjective motives for stopping the vehicle
- "[A] traffic stop is valid under the Fourth Amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring."
- other subjective motives for stopping vehicle are irrelevant to inquiry of whether officer had reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or is occurring
- quoted approvingly in Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, 932 P.2d 22, 32
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
This record has no opinion text. It is a disposition such as a denial of certiorari, kept so the case can be found by name and citation.