The opinion filed on March 15, 2004, appearing at 361 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.2004) is amended as follows: Page 3151, lines 1-2: delete “See Public Citizen v. Dep’t of Transp., 316 F.3d 1002, 1014 (9th Cir.2003).” Page 3164, line 7: replace “dock” with “refinery” Page 3167, lines 6-14: replace “With the dock extension, though, the BP facility can handle additional traffic beyond what market forces might bring about alone. The New platform facilitates an increase in tanker traffic and is a “but for” cause of this increase in tanker traffic even if it is not the sole source of the increase. Public Citizen, 316 F.3d at 1024 (<HOLDING>).” with “With the dock extension, though, the
holding that a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred holding that even where it is impossible to separate the causes of increases in traffic the influence of the challenged activity on increased traffic is still an important causal effect holding that even if an officer has an ulterior motive that does not authorize him to conduct a traffic stop of a particular vehicle he may still lawfully execute the stop if he observes the driver violate a traffic law holding that traffic safety is a substantial government goal holding that a traffic stop is valid under the fourth amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring