Commonwealth v. Brazeau
Appeals Court
July 20, 2005
A police officer is not justified in stopping a car solely because he observes items hanging from the rearview mirror.
A police officer saw the defendant driving down the road and observed one or more small objects hanging from the defendant's rearview mirror. The officer stopped the defendant because he determined the driver "could not see the road properly" and that this "might have affected her ability to drive safely," (thereby constituting a civil motor vehicle infraction under c. 90, §13.) The stop ultimately led to the defendant's arrest for operating under the influence of liquor. The court found that the officer did not have sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop the car.
The objects the officer observed turned out to be two small wooden hearts and a prism. The court held that the "mere existence of two or three small items hanging from a rearview mirror does not suffice to constitute a violation … or warrant police investigation." More specifically, the court found that the officer never testified that it was the reflective quality of the prism that caught his attention and caused him to stop the vehicle. "Had the officer in fact testified to his reliance upon objectively verifiable qualities of the hanging items that made them distracting or that interfered with the driver's view, a different case may have been presented." The court noted there was no testimony indicating the items were swinging back in forth in front of the driver's face, that the officer saw the driver peering around the objects, or that the driver was weaving in any fashion. Without more, the officer did not have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting a traffic violation.
Appeals Court
July 20, 2005
A police officer is not justified in stopping a car solely because he observes items hanging from the rearview mirror.
A police officer saw the defendant driving down the road and observed one or more small objects hanging from the defendant's rearview mirror. The officer stopped the defendant because he determined the driver "could not see the road properly" and that this "might have affected her ability to drive safely," (thereby constituting a civil motor vehicle infraction under c. 90, §13.) The stop ultimately led to the defendant's arrest for operating under the influence of liquor. The court found that the officer did not have sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop the car.
The objects the officer observed turned out to be two small wooden hearts and a prism. The court held that the "mere existence of two or three small items hanging from a rearview mirror does not suffice to constitute a violation … or warrant police investigation." More specifically, the court found that the officer never testified that it was the reflective quality of the prism that caught his attention and caused him to stop the vehicle. "Had the officer in fact testified to his reliance upon objectively verifiable qualities of the hanging items that made them distracting or that interfered with the driver's view, a different case may have been presented." The court noted there was no testimony indicating the items were swinging back in forth in front of the driver's face, that the officer saw the driver peering around the objects, or that the driver was weaving in any fashion. Without more, the officer did not have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting a traffic violation.