{1} Thе State appeals the district coui-t’s order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence discovered after a traffic stop. The parties agree that the stop was initiated based on the officex-’s mistaken understanding of the law. The State argues that if the officer’s mistake is a reasonable one, the stop is valid. Defendant argues that the evidencе known to the officer at the time of the stop did not provide reasonable grounds to support a violation of law. We agree with Defendant, and we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
{2} On August 4, 2006, the arresting officer observed Defendant’s car weaving within its lane. The officer began to follow Defendant. Defendant failed to signal a right turn at a green light, and the officer stopped Defendant’s car. After approaching the car, the officer noticed signs that Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Defendant was subsequently arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI).
{3} Defendant moved to suppress the evidence of the DWI and argued that the initial stop was invalid because the officer made a mistake about the relevant traffic law. NMSA 1978, § 66-7-325(A) (1978), governs the use of turn signals and stаtes, in relevant part, the following: “No person shall ... turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal ... in the event any other traffic may be affected by such movement.” At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the arresting officer testified that at the time of the stop, he understood Section 66-7-325 to require the use of a turn signal in all circumstances. On cross-examination, thе officer clarified that he had since learned that the failure to signal is not a per se infraction and is not a violation, unless that failure could have affected traffic. The officer also stated that he did not observe any other cars in the vicinity at the time Defendant made the right turn. The officer did not testify that he, in his pati-ol car, was affected by the right turn. On direct examination, when he was asked about his reaction to the turn without a signal, the officer responded that he thought he saw a traffic infraction.
{4} The district court found that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant’s vehicle and granted the motion
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
{5} A review of the suppression of evidence is a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Urioste,
B. Reasonable Suspicion and Mistake of Law
{6} Article II, Section 10, of the New Mexico Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution control the validity of investigative stops. State v. Muñoz,
1. Other Jurisdictions
{7} The State invites this Court to hold that a reasonable, though in fact mistaken, belief that a traffic offense has occurred creates the necessary reasonable suspicion for a valid traffic stop. This type of argument has been considered by numerous courts throughout the nation. The majority position is well articulated in United States v. Chanthasouxat,
{8} Many other jurisdictions rely on the analysis in Chanthasouxat for the proposition that a mistake of law can never create the reasonable suspicion needed to make a traffic stop. See United States v. Coplin,
{9} The validity of a stop similar to the stop in our case was considered in United States v. Mariscal,
{10} On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court. Id. at 1133. After reviewing the general law holding that a stop based on a mistake of law violates the Fourth Amendment, the court noted that the case before it was somewhat different because “it is not entirely clear that [the officer] made a mistake about the law of Arizona.” Id. at 1130-31. Nevertheless, the court held that “as far as the record shows it is clear that if [the officer] did understand the law, the facts known to him could not justify a traffic stop.” Id. at 1131. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the evidence and rejected the district court’s finding regarding heavy traffic because there was no evidence in the record to support it. Id. at 1131-32. Similarly, the court concluded that the police car, even if considered traffic, was stopped in a position opposite the turn site and that there was thus not “a scintilla of evidence” that the police car could have been affected by the turn. Id. at 1132. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded based on its conclusion that the traffic stop was invalid. Id. at 1133.
{11} Importantly, these cases limit their holdings to situatiоns in which the conduct on which the officer relied provides support for only the erroneous understanding of the law, or a pure mistake of law case. Courts reach a different result when the fact patterns are expanded to include other legal bases to support the stop. Specifically, when an officer makes a stop based on a mistake оf law but the facts articulated by that officer support reasonable suspicion on another basis, the stop is generally upheld. For example, in United States v. Wallace,
{12} The Eighth Circuit makes use of the language that the State would have this Court adopt here. “In our circuit, if an officer makes a traffic stop based on a mistake of law, the legal determination of whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion existed for the stop is judged by whether the mistake of law was an ‘objectively reasonable one.’” United States v. Washington,
2. New Mexico Cases
{13} With this as a background, we now turn to New Mexico cases. This Court has consistently applied an objective standard to determine whether an officer had reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop. See State v. Brennan,
{14} Similarly, the officer in Brennan was incorrect about the geographical reach of the careless driving statute.
{15} Brennan and Muñoz hold that conduct premised totally on a mistake of law cannot create the reasonable suspicion needed to make a traffic stop; but if the facts articulated by the officer support reasonable suspicion on another basis, the stop can be upheld. Brennan,
3. Our Case
{16} Now we turn to our case on appeal. We view the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party-in this case, Defendant. See Sanchez,
{17} Failure to signal is not a per se traffic violation, despite this officer’s good-faith understanding to the contrary. The arresting officer in our case made a mistake of law, and there are no other facts or testimony to support the violation of another law or tо support reasonable suspicion on other grounds. In Brennan and Muñoz, there were articulable facts that could be applied to an existing law to support an officer’s reasonable suspicion that a traffic law had been violated. In the case before us, without more, the officer’s testimony cannot “provide reasonable suspicion or prоbable cause to justify a traffic stop.” Chanthasouxat,
{18} The State directs our attention to a recent unpublished memorandum opinion from this Court, State v. Hubble, No. 26,452, slip op. at 3-4 (N.M.Ct.App. Sept. 10, 2007), which holds contrary to this opinion. “Unpublished decisions are not meant to be used as precedent; they are written solely for the benefit of the parties. Because the pаrties know the facts of the case, a memorandum opinion may not describe fully the critical facts upon which the case was decided.” Winrock Inn Co. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
{19} At oral argument, the State contended that there were sufficient facts for the district court to conclude that the officer’s vehicle was “other traffic [that] may be affected by” the failure to signal under Section 66-7-325(A). The Statе made the same argument at the suppression hearing. From the court’s decision, it becomes clear that the court was not convinced by this argument. Viewing the evidence presented at the suppression hearing in the light most favorable to Defendant, we agree that the officer’s vehicle was not traffic that could be affected by Defendant’s failure to signal. Thе officer testified that there were no other vehicles in the area. Further, he did not state that he had been affected. And the district court commended the officer for his truthfulness. We agree that there could be cases in which the officer’s vehicle could be considered affected traffic, depending on the evidence presented. In our case, the fаcts as articulated by the officer do not support violation of the turn signal law.
{20} It cannot be objectively reasonable to stop a vehicle when there are no facts to support the inference that a law has been violated. To hold otherwise would “remove the incentive for police to make certain that they properly understand thе law that they are entrusted to enforce and obey.” Lopez-Soto,
III. CONCLUSION
{21} We agree with the district court’s finding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant’s car. The district court’s order suppressing evidence obtained after the invalid stop is affirmed.
{22} IT IS SO ORDERED.