STATE v. NELSON
2015 OK CR 10
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- On March 19, 2014 Tulsa officer Turnbough stopped Nelson after observing a left turn without signaling; officer later cited Nelson for failure to signal and not having proof of insurance.
- After being contacted, Nelson exited the vehicle and attempted to walk away; officers ordered him to stop, a physical struggle ensued, and Nelson was arrested for obstruction and resisting an officer.
- Nelson moved to quash the stop and suppress all evidence; two hearings were held and Special Judge Hiddle granted the motion, suppressing all evidence resulting from the stop.
- The State appealed, arguing (inter alia) the stop was supported by a municipal ordinance or by § 11-604, that Nelson’s obstructive conduct and resistance were independent crimes (not fruits of the stop), and that a right to resist an illegal traffic stop should not be recognized.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed whether the stop had probable cause under 47 O.S. § 11-604 (and related municipal ordinance issues), whether Nelson’s conduct was tainted fruit, and whether Oklahoma law permits resisting an investigatory traffic stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Nelson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of initial stop (§ 11-604 / municipal ordinance) | Stop was lawful: failure to signal (and/or municipal ordinance) provided probable cause | Stop was illegal because record lacked proof that other traffic could be affected and State failed to properly introduce ordinance | Court: On limited record, could not say the trial court abused discretion; stop ruled illegal due to insufficient record to show § 11-604 or ordinance violation |
| Suppression of evidence for obstruction/resisting (fruit of illegal stop) | Obstruction and resisting were independent criminal acts and not fruits of the stop; should not be suppressed | Evidence is tainted by illegal stop and must be suppressed | Court: Nelson’s obstruction was an independent, voluntary intervening act that attenuated the taint; suppression of obstruction/resisting evidence was error |
| Right to resist an unlawful traffic stop | No right to resist an investigatory traffic stop; State argued resisting a stop is not permitted | Nelson asserted limited common-law right to resist an unlawful seizure/ arrest applies | Court: Declined to extend common-law right to resist to routine traffic stops; drivers must submit and challenge legality in court |
| Trial court’s handling of Nelson’s motion (vagueness / State’s opportunity) | Trial court gave State time to reopen and remedy record; State failed to do so | Motion was vague but defense prevailed; trial court erred in other ways | Court: No abuse of discretion in how court treated the insufficient motion; State had opportunity but did not properly present ordinance/evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 308 P.3d 1053 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (interpreting § 11-604 requiring signal when reasonable possibility other traffic may be affected)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (U.S. 2014) (reasonable mistake of law can supply reasonable suspicion for a seizure)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975) (attenuation and limits on exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Burkley, 513 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2008) (police vehicle can constitute ‘other traffic’ for § 11-604 analysis)
- Flores v. State, 994 P.2d 782 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999) (intervening acts may purge the taint of prior illegality)