Such a stop is valid even if the officer does not issue a citation for the suspected violation. State v. Clark, 394 N.W.2d 570, 572 (Minn. App. 1986). Minnesota requires all vehicles to "be equipped with a muffler in good working order," Minn. Stat. § 169.69 (2010), and an officer's suspicion that a vehicle's muffler is faulty can be a valid reason to initiate a stop, see State v. Beardemphl, 674 N.W.2d 430, 432 (Minn. App. 2004) (holding search initiated due to loud muffler appropriate); State v. Pierce, 347 N.W.2d 829, 833 (Minn. App. 1984) (affirming felon in possession of a firearm conviction stemming from a stop prompted by noisy muffler).
Under the plain language of the statute, this is a violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.79 (2006) and therefore a reasonable basis for the traffic stop.See State v. Clark, 394 N.W.2d 570, 572 (Minn.App. 1996) (holding that a rear license plate that was obliterated by snow, along with a suspected inoperable muffler, was sufficient to justify a traffic stop). Appellant was required to "keep the plate legible and unobstructed."
Because reasonable suspicion is enough to justify a stop, failure to ticket the person for the suspected violation does not render the stop invalid. State v. Clark, 394 N.W.2d 570, 572 (Minn.App. 1986). The record of the omnibus hearing clearly shows that the officers reasonably suspected that appellant violated the city ordinance prohibiting unreasonable acceleration.
Thus, the officer had an objective basis to stop appellant's vehicle. See State v. Clark, 394 N.W.2d 570, 572 (Minn. App. 1986) (concluding that officer who stopped vehicle because its rear license plate was covered with snow and illegible had a specific, articulable fact to support his stop of the vehicle). Appellant essentially argues that, since it was snowing, the officer did not know when the snow on her license plate had accumulated and therefore did not have an objective basis to make the stop.
Similarly, an officer's failure to subsequently investigate a valid basis for a stop does not invalidate the stop. See State v. Clark, 394 N.W.2d 570, 572 (Minn.App. 1986) (stating that an officer's failure to ticket for muffler or license plate violations after the stop does not invalidate the stop). The issue is whether objective, reasonable, articulable suspicion of a violation of law existed at the time of the stop.
The state cites a number of cases that upheld stops based, at least in part, on headlight violations or on noisy exhaust systems. See, e.g., State v. Faber, 343 N.W.2d 659, 660 (Minn. 1984) (upholding stop for "headlights violation," but failing to set out facts surrounding stop or to specify exactly what statute was violated); Holm v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 416 N.W.2d 473, 474 (Minn.App. 1987) (upholding stop where officers testified that defendant was driving with high beams on, did not dim them for oncoming traffic, and was drifting toward right side of road where vehicles normally park); State v. Clark, 394 N.W.2d 570, 571 (Minn.App. 1986) (upholding stop where vehicle was loud and did not appear to have muffler, license plate was obliterated by snow, and defendant looked in officer's direction with blank, drunken stare); State v. Pierce, 347 N.W.2d 829, 831, 833 (Minn.App. 1984) (upholding stop of vehicle for "excessive muffler noise" and "noisy muffler," but failing to set out facts surrounding stop). Based on the facts before us, we do not believe that these cases are controlling.
The officer's general statement was the only evidence supporting his stop of Bender's vehicle. This court distinguished another case, with facts similar to this one, from Bender in State v. Clark, 394 N.W.2d 570 (Minn.App. 1986). The Clark court explained:
A "specific and articulable suspicion" of a traffic violation generally provides the "minimal" support necessary for a "routine traffic check" under the Fourth Amendment. State v. Clark, 394 N.W.2d 570, 571-72 (Minn.App. 1986) (upholding stop based on obscured license plate and suspicion of broken muffler) (quoting Marben v. State, Dep't of Pub. Safety, 294 N.W.2d 697, 699 (Minn. 1980)).
A "specific and articulable suspicion" of a traffic violation generally provides the "minimal" support necessary for a "routine traffic check" under the Fourth Amendment. State v. Clark, 394 N.W.2d 570, 571 (Minn.App. 1986) (quoting Marben v. Department of Pub. Safety, 294 N.W.2d 697, 699 (Minn. 1980)) (upholding stop based on obscured license plate and suspicion of broken muffler).
As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable when the police observe a traffic violation. See, e.g., State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204, 241 N.W.2d 476 (1976) (license plates attached by wire); State v. Clark, 394 N.W.2d 570 (Minn.App. 1986) (loud exhaust noises). The Minnesota Constitution provides the same protection.