People v. Binkowski

California Supreme Court Nov 2, 2007 No. CR.A. 4355Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that Vehicle Code section 22450 requires a driver to bring their vehicle to a full stop before any part of the vehicle crosses the marked limit line. Consequently, an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop when a vehicle's wheels cross the limit line before coming to a stop.

Issues

Whether a driver violates Vehicle Code section 22450 by failing to stop before any part of their vehicle crosses a marked limit line.
Whether a traffic stop is constitutionally valid when based on objective evidence of a traffic violation, regardless of the officer's subjective motivations.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we hold Vehicle Code section 22450s language "stop at a limit line" mandates a full stop before any part of the vehicle crosses the limit line.”

“A traffic stop is valid so long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, provided the officer with facts supporting a reasonable suspicion a traffic law was being violated.”

68 Cal.Rptr.3d 741 (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Sandra A. BINKOWSKI, Defendant and Appellant.

No. CR.A. 4355. Appellate Division, Superior Court, San Bernardino County.

November 2, 2007. [742] Michael A. Ramos, District Attorney, Alicia Berry, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Edward G. McLee for Defendant and Appellant.

PER CURIAM OPINION

THE COURT.

Sandra A. Binkowski was cited for driving while intoxicated (Veh.Code, § 23152, subd. (a)). She pled not guilty and brought a motion to suppress (Pen.Code, § 1538.5), contending incriminating evidence had been obtained in violation of her constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.; Cal. Const, art. I, § 13; see also Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081.) Specifically, she argued she was subjected to an illegal traffic stop. A hearing on the motion was held on February 2, 2007.

San Bernardino Sheriffs Deputy Alexander Pangburn testified he was on patrol [743] around 10:25 p.m. on June 23, 2006, when he noticed a white Toyota RAV4 traveling on 9th Street near Lion in Rancho Cucamonga. The vehicle appeared to be exceeding the speed limit, which he thought was 35 miles per hour. He saw the vehicle stop at 9th and Hellman, an intersection controlled by a stop sign. The front wheels had crossed the limit line, such that the vehicle straddled the line. Believing the driver had violated Vehicle Code section 22450 (requiring a stop at the limit line), the officer conducted a vehicle stop.[1] When he contacted the driver, appellant, he smelled alcohol. This led him to investigate whether she had been drinking and driving. Ultimately, he cited her for driving while intoxicated. (Veh.Code, § 23152.)

People v. Binkowski

AI Brief

PER CURIAM OPINION

THE COURT.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOTES

AI Brief