[¶ 1] Kenneth Wayne Oliver appeals from four criminal judgments entered on a conditional plea of guilty for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia (methamphetamine), driving under suspension, and fleeing a police officer. He reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found both in his car and on or near his person. Oliver claims the evidence was unconstitutionally seized as a result of a pretextual stop. We conclude the district court properly denied the motion, and we affirm the criminal judgments of the district court.
I
[¶ 2] During the late morning of July 6, 2005, an undercover narcotics task force detective surveilled Oliver after an informant reported a suspicious hand-to-hand exchange taking place at a local car wash/laundromat. The detective did not observe any drug-related activity but did note Oliver’s car lacked license plates and had what appeared to be a faded and illegible temporary registration sticker. The detective testified she would have stopped Oliver’s vehicle to check the registration if she had been driving a marked law enforcement vehicle with a light bar. Instead, she called uniformed patrol officers with information about the car and its direction of travel, telling the officers they would have to make their own decision regarding a stop.
[¶3] Grand Forks Police Officer Donald Beck responded to the detective’s call. Beck testified he was driving behind Oliver’s vehicle and noted the lack of license plates in possible violation of North Dakota vehicle registration laws. Officer Beck testified he saw what appeared to be a faded paper 30-day temporary registration sticker on the rear window of the car.
II
[¶ 4] Oliver argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and to dismiss the charges because the stop of his vehicle was pretextual and therefore unconstitutional. The State argues the stop was constitutional because the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion that Oliver was committing a vehicle license registration violation. The State argues whether the stop was pretex-tual is irrelevant because the officer observed a traffic violation, allowing for a lawful stop of the vehicle.
[¶ 5] When reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, we defer to the district court’s findings of fact.
State v. Kitchen,
[T]he officer making the investigatory stop had personally visually observed [Oliver’s] vehicle without a rear license plate before he initiated a traffic stop. Further, he did not attempt to initiate a conversation with [Oliver] until after he determined that the temporary registration application was illegible.
[¶ 6] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, § 8 of the North Dakota Constitution guarantee “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The United States Supreme Court has stated:
Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a “seizure” of “persons” within the meaning of [the Fourth Amendment]. An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be “unreasonable” under the circumstances. As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.
Whren v. United States,
[¶ 7] Here, Officer Beck testified he observed a Lincoln lacking license plates in possible violation of North Dakota law. Section 39-04-17, N.D.C.C., allows for a temporary paper certificate to be displayed on a vehicle while a title application is being processed. This temporary certificate is valid for thirty days from the date of application. The faded temporary registration certificate with no visible printing was indicative of a temporary certificate that was more than thirty days old and constituted an objective fact giving the officer a right to stop Oliver to check its validity.
[¶ 8] Oliver argues Officer Beck made the stop only after receiving information from an undercover narcotics task force detective who surveilled Oliver for a possible drug-related exchange at a carwash. Oliver argues this is not enough basis for a stop. He also argues displaying a faded temporary vehicle registration is not unlawful.
[¶ 9] In Texas, law enforcement officers observed a driver operating a used car with a very faded temporary registration “dealers tag.”
Kennedy v. State of Texas,
[T]he faded dealers tag gave the officers reasonable suspicion to believe that a violation had occurred, that Appellant was driving an unregistered car. Appellant was not stopped because the faded tag was a violation, but rather, under the circumstances, it was an indication that a violation had been, and was, occurring.
Id.
[¶ 10] Here, Officer Beck received a call from the undercover detective who did not stop Oliver but merely relayed information that Oliver may have been committing a traffic violation. The district court found Officer Beck personally observed a possible vehicle registration violation, thereby making the stop constitutional. Because Oliver fled when officers commanded him to stop, the subsequent searches of Oliver and the vehicle were incident to his arrest for fleeing a peace officer. We conclude, therefore, the district court properly refused to suppress the evidence obtained during the searches of Oliver and his vehicle.
Ill
[¶ 11] We affirm the judgments, concluding the stop was not unconstitutional and the searches were valid searches incident to arrest.