Jоse M. SANTANA, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
No. 20A04-1302-CR-54.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
May 30, 2014.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 4, 2011, Goshen рolice officer Todd Burks saw a pick-up truck Santana was driving in Goshen, Indiana. He ran the license plate information for the truck, but he omitted one digit from the plate number and the result came back “Not on File.”2 (Tr. at 6.) Officer Burks followed the truck and saw it turn 100 tо 150 feet after the turn signal was activated.
Officer Burks pulled the truck over and asked Santana for his license. Sаntana said he did not have a license, and Officer Burks asked if he had any kind of identification. Santana produced a Mexican voter registration card with his photogrаph. Officer Burks asked for the registration of the truck. He entered the number properly and discovered the registration was valid. However, Officer Burks arrested Santana аfter he determined Santana had been adjudicated an Habitual Traffic Offender suсh that his driving privileges were forfeited for life.
The State charged Santana with Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges were forfeited for life.1 Santana filed a Motion to Suppress, arguing Officer Burks did not have a valid basis for stopping his truck. The trial court denied the motion and, during the trial, Santana lodged a continuing objeсtion to the validi-
Peter D. Todd, Elkhart, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, J.T. Whitehead, Deputy Attоrney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
MAY, Judge.
OPINION
Jose M. Santana appeals his conviction of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while рrivileges are forfeited for life.1
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Our standard for review of rulings on the admissibility of evidence is essentially the same whether the challenge is made by a pre-trial motion to suppress or by trial objection. Turner v. State, 862 N.E.2d 695, 699 (Ind. Ct.App.2007). Wе do not reweigh the evidence, and we consider conflicting evidence most fаvorable to the trial court‘s ruling. Id. However, we must also consider the uncontested evidence favorable to the defendant. Id.
Police officers may stop a vеhicle when they observe minor traffic violations.3 Id. A stop is lawful if there is an objectively justifiable reason for it, and a stop may be justified on less than probable cause. Id. If there is an objectively justifiable reason, then the stop is valid whether or not the police officer would have otherwise made the stop but for ulterior suspicions or motives. Id. at 699-700.
The trial court heard evidence Santana committed a traffic viоlation that would permit a lawful traffic stop. Officer Burks testified Santana did not signal for the proper distance before turning, but Santana argues the evidence shows there was “a real possibility” he could have signaled “at the two hundred and fifteen foot (215) mаrk.” (Appellant‘s Br. at 6.) Santana‘s argument is a request to reweigh the evidence, which we may not do, see Turner, 862 N.E.2d at 699, and we accordingly affirm. See Haynes v. State, 937 N.E.2d 1248, 1253 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (officer‘s testimony of traffic infraction sufficient to justify traffic stoр), trans. denied.
Affirmed.
VAIDIK, C.J., and RILEY, J., concur.