Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-9456.
November 1, 2006.
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Tok, Evelyn Martiniuk, Magistrate, Trial Court No. 4TO-04-165 CR.
Appearances: Michael O'Brien, Assistant Public Defender, Fairbanks, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Ben Seekins, Assistant District Attorney, Fairbanks, and David W. Márquez, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Stewart, Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Christopher W. Williams was convicted of driving in violation of his instructional permit after a state trooper pulled him over for expired vehicle registration. Williams argues that the district court should have suppressed the evidence because the trooper was not close enough to see that his registration sticker was expired. He also argues that the court's probable cause finding was based on facts not in evidence. Because we find the court properly denied the suppression motion, we affirm his conviction.
AS 28.15.051(a)-(b).
Facts and proceedings
On November 16, 2004, at approximately 6:40 p.m., Alaska State Trooper Sergeant Freddie L. Wells was driving east on the Alaska highway in Tok. Wells saw Williams talking to someone in the Village Gas parking lot and then, as he drove past, saw Williams quickly pull out of the lot heading west. Wells thought it was suspicious that Williams drove off as soon as he saw Wells's patrol car. He also remembered that another trooper had reported an equipment violation with the vehicle, so he turned around and followed Williams.
Wells testified that he had a clear view of Williams's license plate. He noticed that Williams's registration sticker was expired. He called dispatch, which confirmed that Williams's registration was expired. Then he activated his lights and stopped Williams.
As a result of this contact, Williams was charged with several offenses, including driving in violation of an instructional permit and two minor offenses: driving with expired registration and driving without proof of insurance.
Williams moved to suppress the evidence against him. He argued that Wells was too far behind him to see his registration sticker, and, therefore, that Wells did not have probable cause for the stop. After an evidentiary hearing, Magistrate Martiniuk denied the motion, finding that Trooper Wells saw the expired registration sticker before he stopped Williams.
Following this ruling, Williams entered a Cooksey plea to driving in violation of an instructional permit, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The State dismissed the other charges.
See Cooksey v. State, 524 P.2d 1251, 1255-57 (Alaska 1974).
Discussion
On appeal, Williams renews his claim that Trooper Wells did not have probable cause to stop him for expired vehicle registration. He also argues that, in finding probable cause for the stop, Magistrate Martiniuk took improper judicial notice of the Tok roads, the distances involved, and the manner in which vehicles generally travel on the roads.
Whether probable cause for a traffic stop exists is a mixed question of fact and law. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and overturn its factual findings only if they are clearly erroneous. We independently review whether those facts justify a finding of probable cause.
Chandler v. State, 830 P.2d 789, 792 (Alaska App. 1992).
State v. Wagar, 79 P.3d 644, 650 (Alaska 2003); Nease v. State, 105 P.3d 1145, 1147-48 (Alaska App. 2005); Chandler, 830 P.2d at 792.
Nease, 105 P.3d at 1148; Chandler, 830 P.2d at 792.
Trooper Wells testified that he saw an expired registration sticker on Williams's car — a violation of the traffic code — and confirmed the violation through dispatch before he stopped Williams. Normally, an officer who directly observes a violation of the traffic code has probable cause for a traffic stop. Accordingly, when Magistrate Martiniuk found that Wells saw the expired sticker, she held that he had probable cause for the stop.
AS 28.10.471.
Nease, 105 P.3d at 1147; Williams v. State, 853 P.2d 537, 538 (Alaska App. 1993).
Williams challenges the magistrate's finding that Wells saw Williams's expired registration sticker. However, Williams does not dispute that his registration was expired, that the dispatcher told Wells that the registration was expired, and that it was reasonable for Wells to rely on this information from dispatch. This information alone provided probable cause for a stop. It does not matter whether Wells saw the expired registration sticker because, when the dispatcher told Wells that Williams's registration was expired, Wells had probable cause to stop Williams. Although the magistrate did not deny Williams's motion for this reason, we may affirm the court's decision on any ground supported by the record.
State v. Joubert, 20 P.3d 1115, 1119 (Alaska 2001).
See Rutherford v. State, 605 P.2d 16, 21 n. 12 (Alaska 1979); Millman v. State, 841 P.2d 190, 195 (Alaska App. 1992).
Williams's judicial notice argument fails for the same reason. Regardless of whether Magistrate Martiniuk erred when she took judicial notice of distances and driving practices in Tok, this alleged error has no bearing on the information that Wells received from the dispatcher. Because we find that Wells had probable cause for the stop based on the information he received from the dispatcher, Williams's suppression motion fails even if the magistrate took improper judicial notice of distances or driving practices in Tok. Accordingly, we do not reach Williams's judicial notice argument.
Conclusion
Williams's conviction is AFFIRMED.