United States v. Nicholson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14153
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- On June 17, 2010 Officer Doyle Baker stopped Jesse Nicholson after Nicholson completed a left turn from eastbound 19th Street into the outermost (right) northbound lane on Main Street; Baker cited a Roswell ordinance (12-6-5.1) requiring left turns to be completed in the left lane.
- Baker smelled marijuana at the stop, had Nicholson exit the vehicle, observed drug paraphernalia and a police scanner, sought consent to search (denied), issued a citation, then had the car towed and obtained and executed a search warrant.
- The warrant search uncovered >50 grams methamphetamine, a loaded handgun, scale, pills, baggies, and other items; Nicholson was indicted on drug and firearms charges.
- Nicholson moved to suppress, arguing the traffic stop was unlawful because New Mexico law (and the adopted uniform ordinance) did not prohibit the turn he made; the district court denied suppression, concluding the ordinance forbade Nicholson’s maneuver.
- After a mistrial, Nicholson entered a conditional plea reserving the right to appeal the suppression denial; the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding the stop lacked lawful basis because the ordinance/statute did not clearly prohibit the turn and an officer’s mistake of substantive law cannot justify a stop.
- The panel declined to affirm on alternative theories (other traffic violations or Leon good-faith) because the government did not advance those grounds below and the record lacks factual development on them; the court remanded with directions to vacate convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nicholson) | Defendant's Argument (Government/Officer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of stop: May an officer stop a driver based on an alleged violation of a turn-position ordinance when the officer’s understanding of the ordinance is incorrect? | The ordinance (and analogous state statute) do not prohibit completing a left turn into the outermost lane; stop violated Fourth Amendment. | Officer Baker reasonably believed Nicholson violated the ordinance by not remaining in the left lane. | Stop unlawful: officer’s mistake of substantive law cannot justify the stop; district court erred. |
| Effect of ambiguity: Is an officer’s reasonable mistake about an ambiguous traffic law permissible to justify a stop? | Even if ambiguous, the text and state-court authority show the statute/ordinance doesn’t require turning into a specific lane. | The officer’s interpretation was reasonable and not foreclosed at the time of the stop. | Circuit holds mistakes of law by enforcing officers are not objectively reasonable — ambiguity does not rescue the officer here. |
| Alternative legal bases / preservation: Could other violations (e.g., careless driving) or good-faith reliance on the ordinance justify upholding the stop on appeal? | N/A (Nicholson relied on lack of lawful basis). | Government argues on appeal other bases or Leon good-faith exception justify admission. | Rejected: government failed to raise these grounds in district court and record lacks factual support; appellate court will not affirm on unbriefed theories. |
| Remedy: If stop unlawful, should suppression apply and convictions be vacated? | Exclusion required because evidence stemmed from unconstitutional stop. | Government would argue suppression inappropriate under Leon/good-faith (raised only on appeal). | Court ordered suppression and directed vacatur of convictions; declined to apply good-faith because government did not develop it below. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tibbetts, 396 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2005) (an officer’s failure to understand the law he enforces is not objectively reasonable)
- United States v. DeGasso, 369 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2004) (officer’s misunderstanding of a plain and unambiguous law is unreasonable)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979) (officers may reasonably rely on duly enacted statutes unless flagrantly unconstitutional)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (reasonableness assessed under totality-of-circumstances; factual judgments merit deference)
- United States v. Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d 783 (10th Cir. 1995) (stop lawful if reasonable suspicion of any applicable traffic or equipment violation)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (probable cause and reasonableness tolerate some errors by officers)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (officer’s motive irrelevant; probable cause judged against correct legal standard)