Court Determines Slower Middle Lane Speeds Don’t Justify Traffic Stops

The Arizona Court of Appeals has clarified a significant point regarding traffic stops: driving below the speed limit is not a valid reason for police to pull over a motorist if they are positioned in the correct lane.

Judge Peter Eckerstrom emphasized that interpreting the law in a strictly technical manner could lead to unlawful practices. He cited the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Eckerstrom stated, “A traffic stop is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, requiring an officer to have reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation to proceed with a stop.”

The judge elaborated that this evaluation must consider the “totality of the circumstances.” This includes practical realities that ordinary people navigate daily, rather than legal technicalities.

Additionally, Eckerstrom noted that if police observations do not clearly distinguish between lawful and unlawful actions, they cannot justify a traffic stop. Such practices could lead to arbitrary detentions of motorists.

The case stemmed from a 2018 incident involving DPS Trooper Ashton Shewey, who stopped Asalia Alvarez-Soto on Interstate 10. The vehicle was travelling in the center lane amid three lanes, slightly under the speed limit of 75 mph.

Shewey’s decision to stop Alvarez-Soto was based on her vehicle’s license plate, which was registered in Nogales, and her recent border crossings. After following her as she drove 78 mph and then slowed to 70 mph, he pursued a traffic stop.

The officer argued that slower traffic should remain in the right lane per Arizona law. After further investigation, officers found marijuana in her vehicle, leading to her conviction for possession and transportation for sale, resulting in a five-year prison sentence.

However, Eckerstrom highlighted that Alvarez-Soto was not driving below the normal speed of traffic in the center lane, especially considering the presence of a police vehicle. He pointed out that drivers typically slow down when a marked patrol car is nearby.

Eckerstrom also remarked that Shewey provided no evidence of any other vehicles being impeded or passing Alvarez-Soto until the moment where the trooper’s cruiser nearly reached her bumper.

The judge argued that stopping her for being overtaken by another vehicle was unjust. Moreover, he voiced that the enforcement of traffic regulations should not compel drivers to breach laws to maintain compliance.

In light of this ruling, evidence obtained from the traffic stop, including the marijuana found, was deemed inadmissible. Consequently, Alvarez-Soto’s convictions were overturned.

While no comment has been issued from the DPS, attorney Rosemary Gordon Panuco expressed agreement with the ruling. She maintained that traffic violations must be interpreted reasonably, asserting that the Stop was not justified.