People v. Sherman CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. Specifically, defendant argues that Officer Ivey’s testimony about defendant’s speeding lacked credibility and undermined his testimony about the lighting and obstruction to defendant’s license plate, such that Officer Ivey did not provide reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. We disagree. In our review of a ruling on a motion to suppress, “we uphold any factual finding, express or implied, that is supported by substantial evidence, but we independently assess, as a matter of law, whether the challenged search or seizure conforms to constitutional standards of reasonableness.” (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 327.) The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.; Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 20; accord, Cal. Const., art. I, § 13.) A traffic stop constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. (Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 436-437.) Police may initiate a lawful traffic stop only if the facts and circumstances support articulable and “reasonable suspicion” that the driver violated the Vehicle Code or…