People v. Burnett, 2019 CO 2

Background

CSP Trooper observed a vehicle flash its turn signal twice over <200 feet on a highway (55 mph) and then change lanes; he stopped the vehicle believing a traffic violation occurred.
Devon Burnett was a passenger; troopers later found a handgun, suspected methamphetamine, paraphernalia, and arrested Burnett on drug and weapons charges.
Burnett moved to suppress evidence from the stop, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-903(2) does not require signaling for a set distance before a lane change.
The trial court granted suppression, holding subsection (2)’s continuous-distance requirement applies only to turns, not lane changes.
The People appealed, arguing under Heien that even if the trooper misread the statute, his mistake of law was objectively reasonable and supplied reasonable suspicion for the stop.
The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed suppression, holding the statute unambiguously distinguishes turns from lane changes and the trooper’s interpretation was not objectively reasonable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation under § 42-4-903(2)	Trooper (People): § 42-4-903(2) reasonably construed to require signaling continuously for 200 feet before changing lanes on high-speed highways; trooper’s mistake was objectively reasonable under Heien	Burnett: § 42-4-903(2) applies to turns only; lane changes are governed by a separate provision requiring only use of a signal (no continuous-distance requirement)	Court held the stop lacked reasonable suspicion: subsection (2) governs turns, subsection (4) separately references lane changes, and trooper’s statutory construction was objectively unreasonable
Whether an officer’s mistaken interpretation of the statute could still justify the stop under the Fourth Amendment (Heien doctrine)	People: Even if mistaken, the trooper made an objectively reasonable mistake of law (Heien), so the stop was lawful	Burnett: The statute’s plain language is unambiguous; mistake was not reasonable and cannot salvage reasonable suspicion	Court held Heien inapplicable because the statute is unambiguous; mistake was not objectively reasonable
Whether lack of appellate precedent makes an officer’s mistaken statutory reading reasonable	People: Absence of Colorado appellate interpretation and driver handbook support rendered the trooper’s reading reasonable	Burnett: Plain statutory text controls; lack of precedent does not overcome unambiguous language	Court: Lack of precedent does not make an objectively unreasonable reading reasonable when plain text and structure are clear
Remedy for Fourth Amendment violation (exclusion)	People: (Argued in dissent) exclusionary rule should not apply because the trooper’s conduct was at most negligent and the stop was objectively reasonable	Burnett: Suppression of the fruits of the stop is appropriate after finding a Fourth Amendment violation	Majority: Declines to decide remedy beyond affirming suppression (parties did not brief exclusion); affirms trial court suppression; dissent argued against exclusion but majority did not reach remedial analysis

Key Cases Cited

Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014) (an objectively reasonable mistake of law can supply reasonable suspicion for a stop)
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (Fourth Amendment allows reasonable mistakes by officers enforcing the law)
People v. Chavez-Barragan, 365 P.3d 981 (Colo. 2016) (standard for reviewing suppression orders and reasonable-suspicion framework)
Casillas v. People, 427 P.3d 804 (Colo. 2018) (discussing limits and remedial questions related to Heien)
United States v. Stanbridge, 813 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2016) (Heien does not justify misreading an unambiguous statute)
United States v. Rubio-Sepulveda, 237 F. Supp. 3d 1116 (D. Colo. 2017) (discussed an officer’s similar reading of § 42-4-903 and analyzed reasonable-mistake arguments)