OK: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to obstruction during arguably unjustified traffic stop

Defendant turned left without a signal, and the state statute required that it have a potential “affect” on traffic. Because the police car was the only other car around, and Heien was decided after the traffic stop, the court can’t say that the trial court erred in finding the stop unreasonable under the statute. Defendant, however, was also charged with obstructive behavior during the stop, and the court will not extend the Fourth Amendment to protect that. “We likewise decline to extend the right to resist to an illegal traffic stop. Compared to an arrest, a routine traffic stop is a short-lived encounter with law enforcement that entails far less of an intrusion on a driver’s personal liberty. Additionally, the typical motorist simply is not equipped to make a determination of whether there is a legal basis for a traffic stop. Whether the officer did, in hindsight, have probable cause to make the traffic stop should be resolved in a courtroom, not in the streets. To permit otherwise would effectively encourage drivers to engage in potentially explosive self-help methods. This, in turn, would increase the risk of escalating what should be a relatively benign interaction between law enforcement and a driver into a potentially dangerous or violent interaction.” State v. Nelson, 2015 OK CR 10, 2015 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 10 (September 19, 2015).