Posted on 12/15/2014 10:08:20 AM PST by zeugma
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
heien v. north carolina
Following a suspicious vehicle, Sergeant Matt Darisse noticed that only one of the vehicles brake lights was working and pulled the driver over. While issuing a warning ticket for the broken brake light, Darisse became suspicious of the actions of the two occupants and their answers to his questions. Petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien, the cars owner, gave Darisse consent to search the vehicle. Darisse found cocaine, and Heien was arrested and charged with attempted trafficking. The trial court denied Heiens motion to suppress the seized evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, concluding that the vehicles 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. §20129(g), requires only a single lampwhich Heiens vehicle hadand 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, Darisses mistaken understanding of the law was reasonable, and thus the stop was valid.
Held: Because Darisses mistake of law was reasonable, there was reasonable suspicion justifying the stop under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 413.
(a) The Fourth Amendment requires government officials to act reasonably, not perfectly, and gives those officials fair leeway for enforcing the law, Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160. Searches and seizures based on mistakes of fact may be reasonable. See, e.g., Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U. S. 177186. The limiting factor is that the mistakes must be those of reasonable men. Brinegar, supra, at 176. Mistakes of law are no less compatible with the concept of reasonable suspicion, which arises from an understanding of both the facts and the relevant law. Whether an officer is reasonably mistaken about the one or the other, the result is the same: the facts are outside the scope of the law. And neither the Fourth Amendments text nor this Courts precedents offer any reason why that result should not be acceptable when reached by a reasonable mistake of law.
More than two centuries ago, this Court held that reasonable mistakes of law, like those of fact, could justify a certificate of probable cause. United States v. Riddle, 5 Cranch 311, 313. That holding was reiterated in numerous 19th-century decisions. Although Riddle was not a Fourth Amendment case, it explained the concept of probable cause, which this Court has said carried the same fixed and well known meaning in the Fourth Amendment, Brinegar, supra, at 175, and n. 14, and no subsequent decision of this Court has undermined that understanding. The contrary conclusion would be hard to reconcile with the more recent precedent of Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U. S. 31, where the Court, addressing the validity of an arrest made under a criminal law later declared unconstitutional, held that the officers reasonable assumption that the law was valid gave them abundant probable cause to make the arrest, id., at 37. Heien attempts to recast DeFillippo as a case solely about the exclusionary rule, not the Fourth Amendment itself, but DeFillippos express holding is that the arrest was constitutionally valid because the officers had probable cause. See id., at 40. Heien misplaces his reliance on cases such as Davis v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, where any consideration of reasonableness was limited to the separate matter of remedy, not whether there was a Fourth Amendment violation in the first place.
Heien contends that the rationale that permits reasonable errors of fact does not extend to reasonable errors of law, arguing that officers in the field deserve a margin of error when making factual assessments on the fly. An officer may, however, also be suddenly confronted with a situation requiring application of an unclear statute. This Courts holding does not discourage officers from learning the law. Because the Fourth Amendment tolerates only objectively reasonable mistakes, cf. Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, an officer can gain no advantage through poor study. Finally, while the maxim Ignorance of the law is no excuse correctly implies that the State cannot impose punishment based on a mistake of law, it does not mean a reasonable mistake of law cannot justify an investigatory stop. Pp. 412.
(b) There is little difficulty in concluding that Officer Darisses error of law was reasonable. The North Carolina vehicle code that requires a stop lamp also provides that the lamp may be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps, N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20129(g), and that all originally equipped rear lamps must be in good working order, §20129(d). Although the State Court of Appeals held that rear lamps do not include brake lights, the word other, coupled with the lack of state-court precedent interpreting the provision, made it objectively reasonable to think that a faulty brake light constituted a violation. Pp. 1213.
367 N. C. 163, 749 S. E. 2d 278, affirmed.
Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Kagan, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
....”The only reason this becomes an issue is because the subsequent stop resulted in a more serious charge, which the defendants are trying to get out of by suppressing the evidence”....
Exactly...and generally most criminals know, with an attorney, they can manipulate the system enough to get away with crime, and often do.
The higher ups in the drug scene have their illicit gained funds to hire the best attorneys. It’s usually the mules that end up behind bars with that in mind I say this pair were plums!
I don’t see much problem with this decision as it seems to be consistent with precedent and reasonableness, especially in the light of a statute that could be construed ambiguously.
Good fact-based and Constitution-based analysis. Nice to see thoughtful posts like this.
True..it is usually the low enders who get arrested...but if they’re good at what they do the higher ups will get them attorneys to get them off.
I knew a man, (he was really fine ;) who was head of the drug force in the area I lived. Would share how the system works regarding hearings etc. where these guys get let off for technicalities etc.
It really is a war between cops and bad guys....and that carries over into the court system. Unfortunately, and contrary to the Ferguson nonesense, many do get off depending of how valuable they are to those they “serve” under.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.