CA9: Officer’s lie to def about basis for stop isn’t a Fourth Amendment violation

Officers had reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop based on wiretaps. The fact the officer deliberately lied to defendant about the basis of the stop doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Magallon-Lopez, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5891 (9th Cir. March 31, 2016):

Unable to contest the existence of reasonable suspicion, Magallon-Lopez challenges the legality of the stop on a different theory. He contends that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer who pulled him over deliberately lied when stating the reason for the stop, and the reason the officer gave was not itself supported by reasonable suspicion.

That the officer lied about seeing Magallon-Lopez make an illegal lane change does not call into question the legality of the stop. The standard for determining whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists is an objective one; it does not turn either on the subjective thought processes of the officer or on whether the officer is truthful about the reason for the stop. If, for example, the facts provide probable cause or reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop, the stop is lawful even if the officer made the stop only because he wished to investigate a more serious offense. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 812-13, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1996). Likewise, if the facts support probable cause to arrest for one offense, the arrest is lawful even if the officer invoked, as the basis for the arrest, a different offense as to which probable cause was lacking. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 153-55, 125 S. Ct. 588, 160 L. Ed. 2d 537 (2004); United States v. Ramirez, 473 F.3d 1026, 1030-31 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court in Devenpeck emphasized that the objective facts are what matter in situations like these: …