Following a suspicious vehicle, Sergeant Matt Darisse noticed that only one of the vehicle’s brake lights was working and pulled the driver over. While issuing a warning ticket for the broken brake light, Dar- isse became suspicious of the actions of the two occupants and their answers to his questions. Petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien, the car’s owner, gave Darisse consent to search the vehicle. Darisse found co- caine, and Heien was arrested and charged with attempted traffick- ing. The trial court denied Heien’s motion to suppress the seized evi- dence on Fourth Amendment grounds, concluding that the vehicle’s faulty brake light gave Darisse reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the relevant code provision, which requires that a car be “equipped with a stop lamp,” N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20–129(g), requires only a single lamp—which Heien’s vehicle had—and therefore the justification for the stop was objectively unreasonable. Reversing in turn, the State Supreme Court held that, even assuming no violation of the state law had occurred, Darisse’s mistaken understanding of the law was rea- sonable, and thus the stop was valid.NOBODY expects a cop to know EXACTLY what the law is in every nuance. They're not trained lawyers. Seems this cop was unclear about what combination of non-functioning rear lights constituted legally dysfunctional, investigated on the reasonable grounds of a transgression probably having happened, and from there whilst investigating found, with driver's consent, evidence of a much greater crime.Held: Because Darisse’s mistake of law was reasonable, there was rea- sonable suspicion justifying the stop under the Fourth Amendment.
Well, your post #41 actually changed my mind. At first I agreed with the SC ruling, but now I don’t. The cop had no legal reason to stop that car. And, yes, a traffic cop should know all the traffic laws, each one of them. That’s his job. If he doesn’t know, it’s on him, and on him alone.
I'm not a cop, or a lawyer.
But, I am expected to know EXACTLY what the law is, or I am subject to prosecution.