People v. Arias (2007)
From Judgepedia
In a 4-3 decision, Justices Eid, Coats and Rice dissented over the majority opinion which concluded that a police officer's search of the defendant and his vehicle, which resulted in the discovery of marijuana and cocaine, was unconstitutional, because the officer's stop was predicated only on the belief that the tree-shaped air freshener hanging from the defendant's-driver's rear-view mirror unlawfully obstructed the defendant-driver's vision.
* ON SEARCH AND SEIZURE:The officer followed the defendant for a dozen blocks, and, observing no traffic violations, finally decided to pull the defendant over for having a tree-shaped air freshener hanging from his rear-view mirror-- the only "possible ground" for stopping the defendant, because it "could have" obstructed the driver's vision. "However, no showing was made that [the officer] believed it obstructed the driver's vision at the time of the stop." The officer did not verify "whether the air freshener actually obstructed the driver's vision." The defendant testified that "the air freshener in no way obstructed his vision."
* ON SEARCH AND SEIZURE:"To stop a vehicle based on [driving with obstructed vision], there must be more than a possibility that the driver's vision is obstructed. An officer must reasonably believe that the statute is being violated or is about to be violated, and he must be able to communicate this reasonable belief to the court. Here, Officer Gray testified that he pulled over Arias because the air freshener “could have” obstructed the driver's vision through the windshield. The trial court appeared to conclude from this testimony that [the officer] believed the air freshener hanging from the rear-view mirror was in violation of the statute without regard to whether the driver's vision through the windshield was actually obstructed. Because [the officer] did not testify with any specificity how the air freshener was displayed in the windshield or how the angle of vision may have actually been obstructed, he did not persuade the court that his belief that the air freshener obstructed the driver's vision was reasonable."
Justice Eid authored the dissenting opinion, in which Justices Coats and Rice joined, protesting that because the trial court had concerns abut the vagueness of the obstructed view statute, it was not adequately able to make a factual finding as to whether the air freshener actually obstructed the defendant's view of the road. Thus these three justices would have the case remanded to the trial court for further findings. [1]
