This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was stopped by a law enforcement officer for allegedly improper display of a vehicle registration tag. The officer observed a vehicle with no visible license plate but a piece of paper on the inside of the back windshield, which she thought might be a temporary tag. The officer initiated a traffic stop and later confirmed it was a temporary tag after using her high-beams. The stop led to the Defendant's convictions for aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer, driving while license revoked, and vehicle subject to registration (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, Curry County: The Defendant was convicted following a jury trial for aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer, driving while license revoked, and vehicle subject to registration (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence, claiming the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the initial stop. He contended that the officer's testimony about the reason for the stop was not credible (paras 2 and 5).
- Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Did the officer have reasonable suspicion to justify the initial traffic stop of the Defendant's vehicle?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the Defendant's motion to suppress (para 7).
Reasons
Per Wray J. (Duffy and Yohalem JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the district court was within its role to determine the credibility of the officer's testimony. The officer testified that the stop was due to the improper display of the registration tag, which was not legible due to its placement and window tint. The district court, as the fact-finder, was entitled to resolve any conflicts in testimony and determine credibility. The Court of Appeals concluded that there was no error warranting reversal, as the district court's findings were supported by the officer's testimony (paras 3-6).