State v. Breznai, 2022 OK CR 17, P8-P9

Both the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions guarantee the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Okla. Const. art. 2, § 30. In order to stop a vehicle, a police officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that the vehicle or driver is in violation of the law. Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60, 135 S. Ct. 530, 190 L. Ed. 2d 475 (2014); McGaughey v. State, 2001 OK CR 33, ¶ 24, 37 P.3d 130, 136. Reasonable suspicion is a "particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity." Kansas v. Glover, U.S. , 140 S.Ct. 1183, 1187, 206 L. Ed. 2d 412 (2020) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18, 101 S. Ct. 690, 66 L. Ed. 2d 621 (1981)).

"Although a mere 'hunch' does not create reasonable suspicion, the level of suspicion the standard requires is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and obviously less than is necessary for probable cause." Id. (quoting Prado Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 397, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 188 L. Ed. 2d 680 (2014) (internal citation omitted in original)). This determination of reasonable suspicion "permit[s] officers to make commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior." Id. (quoting Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125, 120 S. Ct. 673, 145 L. Ed. 2d 570 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In determining if a traffic stop violates the Fourth Amendment, this Court considers "whether the officer's action was justified at its inception and whether the officer's subsequent actions were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." State v. Zungali, 2015 OK CR 8, ¶ 5, 348 P.3d 704, 705-06.