D.Minn.: Even the most minor traffic offense justifies a stop

A motorcyclist failing to yield to a pedestrian justifies a traffic stop. “Patterson suggests that the commission of such a minor traffic offense did not justify the stop. This position is flatly contrary to established law.” Defendant was wearing a motorcycle club jacket with a Sergeant at Arms patch, meaning that he was the “chief enforcer, disciplinarian, and defender of the club.” He asked about weapons, and the court finds that he admitted he was armed. That justified a search for weapons. United States v. Patterson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31828 (D. Minn. January 30, 2015).

The court of appeals reached the right result despite applying the wrong standard of review to determine probable cause. Probable cause findings in warrantless search cases get no deference from appellate courts. The totality of circumstances must be considered, and, as under Arvizu, there is no “divide and conquer” approach to the evidence. “For these reasons, we agree with the majority of the Court of Appeals that the facts and circumstances known to the officers were sufficient to establish probable cause, and the trial court, therefore, erred when it granted the motion to suppress. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. To the extent that Gray v. State, 267 Ga. App. 753, 756 (2) (600 SE2d 626) (2004), State v. Goode, 298 Ga. App. 749, 750 (681 SE2d 199) (2009), and State v. Encinas, 302 Ga. App. 334, 336 (691 SE2d 257) (2010), conflict with our analysis, we disapprove those decisions.” Hughes v. State, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 185 (March 16, 2015).*