The State Of Oklahoma v Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno

S-2005-890

Filed: Dec. 19, 2006

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno appealed their case after being charged with drug-related crimes in Oklahoma. The District Court dismissed the charges against them, and the State of Oklahoma challenged this decision. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the District Court, stating that the initial traffic stop was illegal, which led to the dismissal of the case. They affirmed the lower court's decision, meaning the charges against Short and Ortuno were dropped. Judge Lumpkin dissented from parts of the ruling.

Decision

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• was there an error in the District Court's application of 47 O.S. § 11.804?
• did Officer Douglas have justification for making the traffic stop under 47 O.S. § 11.301?
• was there reasonable, articulable suspicion to support the traffic stop of the vehicle?
• did the District Court abuse its discretion in holding the initial traffic stop illegal, leading to the dismissal of the charges?

Findings

• the District Court did not err in applying 47 O.S. § 11.804
• the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding insufficient evidence to warrant a traffic stop under 47 O.S.Supp.2002, § 11-301(B) or § 11-309(3)
• the District Court was correct in holding that the testimony of Officer Douglas was insufficient to sustain a reasonable, articulable suspicion for stopping the vehicle
• the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED

S-2005-890

Dec. 19, 2006

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellant

v

Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

A. JOHNSON, JUDGE:

Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno were charged on December 21, 2004, by Information in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2004-5465, with Count 1: Trafficking in Illegal Drugs in violation of 63 O.S. § 2-415; Count 2: Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute in violation of 63 O.S. § 2-401; and Counts 3 and 4: Failure to Obtain Drug Tax Stamp in violation of 68 O.S. § 450-1. Short was also charged with Count 5: Impeding Flow of Traffic in violation of 47 O.S. § 11-804; and Count 6: Driving without Owners’ Security Verification Form in violation of 47 O.S. § 7-606. On September 1, 2005, the District Court sustained the defendants’ Motions to Quash and Suppress and ordered the cases against both defendants dismissed.

The State has perfected its appeal. The State raises the following propositions of error:
1. It was error for the District Court to apply 47 O.S. § 11.804.
2. Officer Douglas was justified in making the traffic stop when applying 47 O.S. § 11.301.
3. Officer Douglas was justified in stopping the vehicle for a traffic infraction because he had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation had occurred.

When reviewing a District Court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we defer to the District Court’s factual findings unless there is a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. Whether those facts meet the appropriate legal standard is a question of law that we review de novo. The dispositive issue before the Court is whether the District Court abused its discretion in holding the initial traffic stop illegal and therefore sustaining the defendants’ Motions to Quash and Suppress.

In proposition one, we find Defendant Short was charged under 47 O.S. § 11.804, and therefore it was not error for the District Court to apply that statute. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Short was driving in compliance with the law and not in violation of 47 O.S.2001, § 11-804. In considering proposition two, we conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding insufficient evidence in the record to warrant a traffic stop under either 47 O.S.Supp.2002, § 11-301(B) or § 11-309(3), the alternative statutes proffered by Appellant. And in proposition three, we find the District Court was correct in holding that the testimony of Officer Douglas at the preliminary hearing was insufficient to sustain a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation had occurred that would warrant stopping the vehicle in question.

DECISION

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY
THE HONORABLE CAROLINE E. WALL, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL
ELLIO TT Z. SMITH
JAKE CAIN
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

500 S. DENVER, 9TH FLOOR
TULSA, OK 74103

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

BRUCE EDGE
716 S. HOUSTON, SUITE 500
TULSA, OK 74127
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT SHORT

DONALD PALIK
STUART SOUTHERLAND
ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER

423 S. BOULDER, SUITE 300
TULSA, OK 74119
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT ORTUNO

OPINION BY: A. JOHNSON, J.

CHAPEL, P.J.: Concur
LUMPKIN, V.P.J.: Concur in Results
C. JOHNSON, J.: Concur
LEWIS, J.: Concur in Results

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S. § 2-415
2. 63 O.S. § 2-401
3. 68 O.S. § 450-1
4. 47 O.S. § 11-804
5. 47 O.S. § 7-606
6. 22 O.S.2001, § 1053
7. 47 O.S. § 11-301
8. 47 O.S.Supp.2002, § 11-301(B)
9. 47 O.S.Supp.2002, § 11-309(3)
10. 22 O.S.2001, § 1053

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-415 - Trafficking in Illegal Drugs
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401 - Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute
• Okla. Stat. tit. 68 § 450-1 - Failure to Obtain Drug Tax Stamp
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-804 - Impeding Flow of Traffic
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 7-606 - Driving without Owners' Security Verification Form
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-301 - Traffic Control Devices
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-309 - Speed Limits
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053 - Appeals

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• State v. Goines, 2004 OK CR 5, I 7, 84 P.3d 767, 768.
• State v. Love, 1998 OK CR 32, I 2, 960 P.2d 368, 369.