William McGaughey v. State of Oklahoma

Chicakasha, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with:



Drug trafficking in violation of 63 O.S.Supp. 1995 §2-415 and transporting a loaded firearm in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1289.13.



MoreLaw was created to help people find experienced lawyers to represent them in the more than 3,144 counties across the United States. Click the link above to see a list of lawyers ready and willing to represent you if you have a legal problem and need help. Call: 918-582-6422 for help.



McGaughey filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his truck, challenging the stop of his truck for the alleged taillight violation and the subsequent searches and discovery of evidence.



In terms of the initial justification for a traffic stop, the Supreme Court has recognized that "[a]s a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred."21 The Supreme Court has further held that where an officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred, his subjective motivation for actually stopping a particular vehicle is irrelevant to the legality of the stop.22 In other words, if an officer's action was "objectively justifiable behavior," because he had probable cause to believe that a driver had violated or was violating some traffic law, stopping the driver's vehicle is lawful regardless of the officer's subjective motivation for the stop.



Neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has directly addressed the situation where an officer pulls an individual vehicle over based upon a reasonable but mistaken belief that a traffic violation has occurred, only to quickly realize-before substantial communication or interaction with the driver-that his initial perception was mistaken. The closest Oklahoma case appears to be Lucas v. State.29 In Lucas, this Court found that where an officer initially stopped a car based upon the officer's reasonable articulable suspicion that the woman passenger in the vehicle had been assaulted by the male driver,30 "[o]nce the officers were assured by the appellant and his wife that everything was fine, the reason for the detention terminated."31 The Court held that marijuana and a loaded gun that were found in a subsequent search of the car should have been suppressed.32 Hence this Court upheld the principle that when the initial justification for the stop has been resolved, the stop must end.



In United States v. McSwain,33 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the situation where an officer discovers, before substantial interaction with the driver, that his reason for stopping a particular vehicle was mistaken. In McSwain, a Utah highway patrol trooper stopped a car because he noticed that it did not have either front or rear licenses plates and he was unable to read the expiration date on the temporary registration sticker in the rear window, which appeared to be covered with reflective tape. As the officer approached the car, however, he determined that the temporary registration was valid and that the reflective material was simply a new device used by the State of Colorado to prevent alteration of the sticker's expiration date. Nevertheless, the officer approached the driver, questioned him about why he was driving the car, and requested identification and vehicle registration. The driver, McSwain, produced a Colorado registration in his name and identification, though he stated that he did not have a driver's license. A passenger then produced his driver's license. The officer continued questioning McSwain and the passenger about where they had been, ran a criminal history check on McSwain (which revealed that his driver's license was suspended and that he had a criminal record of drug and gun violations and assaults), and after asking if they were "packing" any alcohol, firearms, or drugs in the car, asked for and received consent to search the car.34 During this search the officer found a gun, a set of scales, and a bag of crack cocaine.



In addition, the highest state courts in Colorado,39 Ohio,40 and Oregon,41 as well as appellate courts in Florida42 and Washington,43 have all held that when an officer reasonably but mistakenly stops a vehicle that he believes has violated a traffic law, upon discovering that the stopped vehicle is not in violation of the law, the officer no longer has any authority to further detain the driver or even to seek the driver's license, insurance, or registration documents.44 We have found only one jurisdiction that has clearly held that an officer can continue to detain a vehicle and its occupants even after the officer discovers that his initial reason for the traffic stop was mistaken, and even though no new justification for the continued detention has arisen. That jurisdiction is Maine.



* * *



Legal issue Can evidence obtained from a traffic stop based on an officer's mistaken belief of a vehicle law violation be suppressed as a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. FOURTH AMENDMENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE. The case examines the legality of evidence obtained through searches and seizures in light of Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches. The court assessed whether traffic stop justifications held once initial suspicions were dismissed, impacting the admissibility of evidence collected during subsequent searches.



CRIMINAL LAW. TRAFFIC STOPS AND CONTINUING DETENTIONS. The court confronted whether a police officer lawfully continues a traffic stop after realizing the original cause for suspicion was incorrect, exploring if continued detentions exceeded permissible scope under Terry v. Ohio standards.



CRIMINAL LAW. CONSENT TO SEARCH UNDER ILLEGAL DETENTION. Concerning the voluntariness of consent to search given during the unlawful detention of a vehicle and its occupants, the court evaluated whether consent was sufficient to eliminate the taint of an unlawful prolonged traffic stop.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. EVIDENTIARY SUPPRESSION DUE TO ILLEGAL IMPoundment. The legality of vehicle impoundment from private property and the subsequent obtained search warrant was analyzed, especially when initial seizure was deemed illegal, questioning the evidentiary admissibility from subsequent searches.

Key Paragraphs



Highlight Key Paragraphs



"...¶ 25 In terms of the initial justification for a traffic stop, the Supreme Court has recognized that "[a]s a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred."21,The Supreme Court has further held that where an officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred, his subjective motivation for actually stopping a particular vehicle is irrelevant to the legality of the stop.22...”

The Judgments and Sentences of the District Court in Case No. CF-96-19 are REVERSED. The Judgments and Sentences of the District Court in Case No. CF-96-311 are AFFIRMED.