🚦 Brake, Signal, Suppress: How to Successfully Challenge a Traffic Stop

By Christopher G. Humphrey, of Humphrey Legal, PC

DUI defense is one of my main areas of practice. When an attorney reviews your DUI case, they will examine the facts in several key areas: (1) the reason for the stop; (2) the duration and extent of the stop; (3) the probable cause for the arrest; and (4) the breath or blood testing used by the agency, along with whether it meets scientific standards. Each step in the DUI process should adhere to state standards and constitutional protections. When you hire an attorney, you are asking a legal expert to carefully review your case and review all of the evidence with objectivity.

Recently, a Defendant was pulled over for an alleged violation of the Wyoming State Turn Signal Statute- W.S. § 31-5-217. The person was eventually investigated and arrested for DUI. Our team successfully suppressed all evidence in this case due to an unconstitutional traffic stop.

In this case, my client was pulled over for braking before using his turn signal to make a right turn. No other traffic violations were observed. There were no other cars on the road, except for the officer trailing the client by more than ten car lengths.

From the officer’s point of view, this constituted a violation of Wyoming Statute § 31-5-217(c).

Wyoming Statute Section 31-5-217, subsection (c), reads:

“No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal required by this act to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give the signal.”

Wyo. Stat. § 31-5-217(c) (Decisis)

After reviewing the evidence and the basis for the stop, I believed that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop my client. If the officer lacked reasonable suspicion, all the evidence after the stop would be suppressed.

A motion to suppress was filed, and a hearing was requested to determine whether the officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop, as required by the United States Constitution, or reasonable grounds, as specified by the Wyoming State Constitution. It is important to challenge both under the U.S. Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution, as the Wyoming Supreme Court has determined that the Wyoming Constitution offers greater protections in certain instances than the U.S. Constitution. This is supported by the case Levenson v. State, 2022 WY 51, ¶ 18, 508 P.3d 229, 235 (Wyo. 2025).

The Hearing: Brake First or Signal First?

At the hearing, we argued that braking before signaling is not a violation of the law. The district attorney argued the opposite, that the signal must come first, even if you are slowing down to make a turn.

Completely unexpectedly, the court took a close look and found that the brake signal itself satisfied the turn signal statute's language. The court ruled that the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion of a violation of state statute. Essentially, the court ruled that a brake signal or a turn signal would have satisfied the requirements of Wyoming Statute 31-5-217. The statute did not specify which signal was required before a right turn to the car immediately to the rear. Therefore, the Court reasoned, a brake signal would be sufficient under the 'act'.

The Lesson: Look at Everything

After watching the dashcam footage and reviewing the statute, it became clear that the stop did not hold up. This case reminded me, and hopefully other attorneys, that you have to look at everything: the facts, the footage, the statute, the context. Sometimes what seems minor initially can be the key to winning.

Federal vs. State: Two Roads to Reasonableness

This case also highlights a key difference between federal and Wyoming constitutional protections. Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, an officer only needs an objectively reasonable suspicion to make a stop. But under Article 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution, the stop is "judged by an objective standard which takes into account the totality of the circumstances." Levenson v. State, 2022 WY 51, ¶ 32, 508 P.3d 229, 241 (Wyo. 2022)(quoting Elmore v. State, 2021 WY 41, ¶ 10, 482 P.3d 358, 361 (Wyo. 2021)). Although similar, the Wyoming Supreme Court has declared cases unconstitutional even when they would have been deemed constitutional if argued solely under the U.S. Constitution.

That means Wyoming courts look at the whole picture, not just a technical violation, but whether the stop makes sense when you consider everything.

Final Thought

This was not just a technical issue. By challenging these unconstitutional stops, I help ensure that the Constitution is upheld and that citizens are stopped only when there is 'just' cause. It was a victory for common sense, for constitutional rights, and for the principle that the law should be applied equitably. I believe in a fair application of the law, the right to a fair trial, and your constitutional rights.

If you think you were stopped without reason, it's crucial to seek advice from an attorney experienced in this field.