United States v. Burciaga
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15404
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- NM § 66-7-325 requires signaling when other traffic may be affected during lane changes.
- Officer Valdez observed Burciaga on I-25 at ~75 mph; he pulled onto the right shoulder to check a slow maintenance truck, then merged back.
- Burciaga passed the officer and the maintenance truck in the left lane and began a lane change toward the right.
- Burciaga’s lane change occurred without timely signaling; the officer stopped him and charged him with § 66-7-325(A)-(B).
- District court granted suppression, finding no proven reasonable suspicion that traffic could be affected by the lane change.
- Government appealed; the panel held the statute as construed by Hubble provided an objectively justifiable basis to stop; the stop was reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 66-7-325 supports a stop for failure to signal. | Burciaga (the Government) argues signaling could affect traffic and constituted reasonable suspicion. | Burciaga contends the government failed to show traffic could be affected; district court’s reasoning was correct. | Yes; statute provides reasonable suspicion supporting the stop. |
| Whether Hubble’s broad construction of § 66-7-325 applies. | Government relies on Hubble’s broad interpretation. | Burciaga maintains limited application may be appropriate. | Hubble governs; broad reach applies. |
| Whether the district court properly analyzed “could have been affected.” | Govt. argues broad interpretation covers potential effects. | Burciaga argues lack of concrete proof of effective impact. | District court erred by narrowly focusing on actual effect; reasonable possibility suffices. |
| What is the standard of review for suppression rulings under this statute? | Standard is reasonableness under Fourth Amendment with de novo review of law. | Same standard; requires specific articulable facts. | Reasonableness review; proper standard applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubble, 206 P.3d 579 (N.M. 2009), 146 N.M. 70 (N.M. 2009) (construction of § 66-7-325 requiring signaling when a reasonable possibility traffic may be affected)
- United States v. Tibbetts, 396 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2005) (reasonable suspicion standard for traffic stops)
- United States v. DeGasso, 369 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2004) (framework for reviewing stop reasonableness under Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Kitchell, 653 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2011) (burden to show reasonable suspicion by preponderance of evidence)
- United States v. Winder, 557 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2009) (reasonable suspicion requires minimal objective justification)