STATE v. NELSON, 2015 OK CR 10

Background

On March 19, 2014 Officer Tyler Turnbough stopped Nathan Nelson after observing an alleged left turn without signaling into a parking lot; Turnbough testified Nelson could have made the turn safely and that only Nelson's car and the police car were on the road.
After the stop Nelson exited the vehicle, could not produce proof of insurance, and attempted to walk away; officers physically restrained and arrested him after verbal defiance and active resistance, leading to misdemeanor charges for failure to carry insurance, failure to signal, obstructing an officer, and resisting arrest.
Nelson moved to quash the arrest and suppress evidence; hearings were held Oct. 1 and Oct. 22, 2014. The State presented limited testimony and did not properly introduce a Tulsa municipal signaling ordinance into the record.
Special Judge Hiddle granted the motion to quash and suppressed all evidence as fruit of an illegal stop, relying on Johnson v. State. The State sought appellate review.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed de novo legal conclusions and for abuse of discretion factual findings, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Nelson's Argument	Held
1. Legality of initial traffic stop (failure to signal)	Stop was lawful because failure to signal may reasonably affect other traffic; police car on road sufficed; municipal ordinance also supported stop	Stop was unlawful under § 11-604 because no reasonable possibility other traffic was affected; limited record failed to show violation	Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion finding stop unlawful based on limited record; reversal of suppression limited by subsequent analysis
2. Right to resist an unlawful traffic stop	No right to resist a traffic stop; allowing resistance would encourage dangerous confrontations	Nelson may resist an unlawful seizure and thus could walk away from the stop	Court: Oklahoma law does not extend the common-law right to resist an unlawful arrest to routine traffic stops; no right to resist here
3. Application of exclusionary rule to resisting/obstruction charges	Exclusion should not apply to separate crimes that are independent of the stop (obstruction/resisting are separate acts)	Evidence for obstructing and resisting is tainted by illegal stop and should be suppressed	Court: Nelson’s obstructive/resisting conduct was an independent intervening act that attenuated any taint; suppression of those charges was error
4. Trial court’s handling of Nelson’s vague motion and State’s opportunity to respond	Trial court unfairly constrained State after deeming motion insufficient; State should have opportunity to reopen and introduce ordinance	Motion was sufficient to trigger suppression given the record; court properly relied on presented evidence	Court: No abuse of discretion in how the hearing was continued; State had opportunity and failed to properly develop the record; final ruling reversed in part and remanded

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. State, 308 P.3d 1053 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (interpreting § 11-604 and requiring a reasonable possibility that other traffic may have been affected to support a stop)
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (U.S. 2014) (an officer’s reasonable mistake of law can supply reasonable suspicion for a stop)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruits of unlawful police conduct are generally excluded)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975) (rejection of automatic exclusion; attenuation and independent sources can admit evidence)
United States v. Burciaga, 687 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2012) (police vehicle on road may be the ‘‘traffic’’ affected by an unsignaled turn)
United States v. Nava-Ramirez, 210 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 2000) (burden-shifting framework for proving evidence is not fruit of illegal detention)