Appellant, a minor, was stopped by a police officer because one of the three brake lights on the vehicle he was driving was not working. The officer subsequently observed symptoms of intoxication and administered tests, which resulted in the minors conviction for driving under the influence. On appeal, appellant argued that his due process rights were violated because the prosecution did not file a written opposition to his suppression motion, and that the suppression motion should have been granted. The appellate court here affirmed. The traditional core elements of due process are not adversely affected by permitting the prosecution to respond orally to a motion to suppress. Further, the stop of the vehicle was lawful because the lighting equipment on a vehicle must be maintained in working order. Since the supplemental brake light was not working, the officer was justified in making the stop.