Heien v. State of North Carolina

[KeeFus]

I still think this case has more to do with respecting all of the previous cases that have shaped the modern interpretation of the exclusionary rule. For a good while there has always been a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule, see U.S. v Leon. The exclusionary rule seem intended to punish deliberate misconduct by law enforcement - the whole fruits of a poisonous tree, etc. If the misconduct isn't deliberate then excluding the evidence doesn't serve as a deterrent.

I really need to read the case and see if the standard POST teachings were discussed. If the officers had been taught that a vehicle had to have all of its brake lights by the academy, then there is very little "deliberate" about the misconduct. FWIW, most academies don't read the letter of the law to the students. The instructor generally tells the student what the law says. If the instructor tells you wrong, how are you supposed to know?

Yes, it was presented that way in BLET in 1994 when I went through. I suspect that was the case until Heien.

Anyone ever taken Mike Lewis' interdiction class? I took it in the early 2000's. This was a point of concern for us as we could clearly see that sub-section "g" stated a (singular) stop lamp. But then you look at "d" which says differently. The local guys in the class conceded that almost everyone would agree that all stop lamps should be working as designed by the manufacturer. Is there anyone, civilian or LEO, that thinks differently? I don't think so. It has been a week since I read Heien but I think the Court mentions this fact. This is why I believe the justices conceded that it was a "mistake of law" and not bad conduct on the officers part. Dude consented to the search...search was not illegal.

Let's face it. In this instance the law has not kept up with modern safety features. All modern vehicles have at least 2 and from the early 90's they in fact now have 3 stop lamps on the rear of the vehicle. I do not know about other states, but in NC your vehicle will fail inspection if you go there with one (1) stop lamp working.

[ToddG]

Let's face it. In this instance the law has not kept up with modern safety features. All modern vehicles have at least 2 and from the early 90's they in fact now have 3 stop lamps on the rear of the vehicle. I do not know about other states, but in NC your vehicle will fail inspection if you go there with one (1) stop lamp working.

Speaking of keeping up with modernity: What if a single LED bulb in an array is out? You could read the NC law as making that illegal. Plenty of cars these days come with literally dozens of LED brake lights, usually clustered into three arrays.

[KeeFus]

Speaking of keeping up with modernity: What if a single LED bulb in an array is out? You could read the NC law as making that illegal. Plenty of cars these days come with literally dozens of LED brake lights, usually clustered into three arrays.

A legislator just had a heart attack. Seriously, the law, as written is antiquated. With all the fanfare I suspect it will be changed in the next session.

[TGS]

Wait. This question implies that the opinion protects cops from breaking the law. Does an officer break the law when he pulls someone over inappropriately? Or is it more of an administrative error with possibly civil but no criminal consequences?

Does it really matter? Honestly?

Im concerned about the citizens who are going to end up with tens of thousands of dollars of legal debt, lose their jobs, destroy their families, ect all because LE are not held accountable to the same standard as the rest of us.

[ssb]

I just skimmed Royer and don't see anything about a mistaken reading of a criminal statute by the detectives. In fact, a digital search for the word "mistake" anywhere in any of the opinions came up empty.

The majority opinion does specifically say that the reason Royer's "consent" was inadequate was because he'd been held for a time and in a manner that exceeded what was reasonable under the objective circumstances.

It seems, then, that the question the Heien court needed to answer was whether it was reasonable for the officer to have made the mistake of law. They decided it was, and the post above by Keefus probably shows why. I think it's important to keep in mind that the Court did not say Heien was guilty of violating the law for which he was initially pulled over. Had that been the question -- can the defendant be convicted when the arresting officer arrested him for a crime he didn't actually commit -- I think it's clear the answer would have been NO. Instead, the Court followed the very established series of cases that decide exclusion based on a reasonable officer's behavior.

As I said a few posts ago, I think it's a mistake to believe this decision will go far beyond the very narrow fact pattern presented.

First, I did not say that Royer was a mistake case, nor did I say that it controlled here. The point I wanted to make in that example, which was apparently miscommunicated, a problem on the front end of the seizure (i.e. an unreasonable seizure or, in my opinion, a mistake of law on the part of the seizing officer) can make a later, otherwise-valid consent search immaterial.

The cocaine found here wouldn't have been found but for the officer's mistake. I don't see why it's even remotely fair to hold that a legislator's failure to write a clear statute should be used to Heien's detriment. No, Heien was not convicted of failing to maintain his break lights. As a result of a bad stop, however, he was placed in a position where, because he "appeared nervous . . . remained lying down the whole time . . . and gave [an] inconsistent answer about [his] destination," the officer decided to go fishing. I don't think he should have been in the position to give consent to the search in the first place, and I can't say that I think it's a good idea to use the evidence gleaned from that search against him.

Further, I'm not sure that making a decision on what the law says is a particularly reasonable thing for the officer to do in the first place, the Court's reaching all the way back to when Scalia was a teenager back in the early 1800s notwithstanding. I strongly agree with Sotomayor's point that while an officer in the field is in a better position to evaluate the facts of a situation than a reviewing court, that officer isn't necessarily in the best position to interpret the law. Maybe it's simplistic of me, but when I was unclear about my role or the rules I was expected to follow, I was taught to ask somebody who would know.

Finally, I don't share your faith in this decision's limits. The majority opinion lacks language which would give me cause to believe that this is a particularly narrow holding: while they do address the issue, they certainly do not appear to limit the holding to laws which are apt for misinterpretation. Quite the contrary, I do see a somewhat significant and novel introduction of mistake-of-law into the reasonableness analysis to find RAS, with a few promises that "an officer can gain no Fourth Amendment advantage through a sloppy study of the laws" thrown in for good measure.

[ToddG]

Having not read the Heien decision (just skimmed it), how did Heien even have standing to raise the issue of the broken tail light / mistake of law if he was merely a passenger ("in plain sight" so to speak) who raised the officer's suspicion and who then consented to a search?

I've got to go read the decision.

[jrm]

Having not read the Heien decision (just skimmed it), how did Heien even have standing to raise the issue of the broken tail light / mistake of law if he was merely a passenger ("in plain sight" so to speak) who raised the officer's suspicion and who then consented to a search?

I've got to go read the decision.

I haven't read the decision either, but he was seized along with the driver. If the seizure were invalid then any evidence gained from that seizure would be fruit of the poisonous tree. He has standing to challenge the seizure because he himself was seized even though as a mere passenger he would not have standing as to a search of the vehicle.

[fixer]

Does it really matter? Honestly?

Im concerned about the citizens who are going to end up with tens of thousands of dollars of legal debt, lose their jobs, destroy their families, ect all because LE are not held accountable to the same standard as the rest of us.

agreed.

While I get that this decision doesn't "uncover new 4th amendment territory" it does cast a message that seems to imply that ignorance of the law is "ok" for law enforcers as long as it is "reasonable." This could have profound slippery slopes.

[KeeFus]

agreed.

While I get that this decision doesn't "uncover new 4th amendment territory" it does cast a message that seems to imply that ignorance of the law is "ok" for law enforcers as long as it is "reasonable." This could have profound slippery slopes.

From the decision:

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 Court’s 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, 813, an officer can gain no advantage through poor study. Finally, while the maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” correctly implies that the Statecannot impose punishment based on a mistake of law, it does notmean a reasonable mistake of law cannot justify an investigatory stop. Pp. 4–12.
(b) There is little difficulty in concluding that Officer Darisse’s 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. §20–129(g), and that “all originally equipped rear lamps” mustbe “in good working order,” §20–129(d). Although the State Court ofAppeals held that “rear lamps” do not include brake lights, the word “other,” coupled with the lack of state-court precedent interpretingthe provision, made it objectively reasonable to think that a faultybrake light constituted a violation. Pp. 12–13.
367 N. C. 163, 749 S. E. 2d 278, affirmed.

Since this seems to be a point of contention...From page 9 of the decision, the Court goes on to say:

Finally, Heien and amici point to the well-known maxim, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” and contend that it is fundamentally unfair to let police officers get away with mistakes of law when the citizenry is accorded no such leeway. Though this argument has a certain rhetorical appeal, it misconceives the implication of the maxim. The true symmetry is this: Just as an individual generally cannot escape criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law, so too the government cannot impose criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law. If the law required two working brake lights, Heien could not escape a ticket by claiming he reasonably thought he needed only one; if the law required only one, Sergeant Darisse could not issue a valid ticket by claiming he reasonably thought drivers needed two. But just because mistakes of law cannot justify either the imposition or the avoidance of criminal liability, it does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop. And Heien is not appealing a brake-light ticket; he is appealing a cocaine-trafficking conviction as to which there is no asserted mistake of fact or law.

[KeeFus]

I haven't read the decision either, but he was seized along with the driver. If the seizure were invalid then any evidence gained from that seizure would be fruit of the poisonous tree. He has standing to challenge the seizure because he himself was seized even though as a mere passenger he would not have standing as to a search of the vehicle.

This was an interdiction stop, plain and simple. After the items (warning ticket, etc.) were returned, the officer engaged the driver in a friendly conversation and consent was granted. Why is this important? Because once an officer gives you these items back the Court has ruled that the traffic stop is over the people who were stopped are free to leave. At that point the people could tell the officer to pound sand and there is nothing that could be done about it. These 2 chose to stay and conversate which led to inconsistent statements and a valid consent search ensued. So, lets go to the decision rendered by the Court and see.

From page 5:

Two men were in the car: Maynor Javier Vasquez sat behind the wheel, and petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien lay across the rear seat. Sergeant Darisse explained to Vasquez that as long as his license and registration checked out, he would receive only a warning ticket for the broken brake light. A records check revealed no problems with the documents, and Darisse gave Vasquez the warning ticket. But Darisse had become suspicious during the course of the stop—Vasquez appeared nervous, Heien remained lying down the entire time, and the two gave inconsistent answers about their destination. Darisse asked Vasquez if he would be willing to answer some questions. Vasquez assented, and Darisse asked whether the men were transporting various types of contraband.Told no, Darisse asked whether he could search the Escort. Vasquez said he had no objection, but told Darisse he should ask Heien, because Heien owned the car. Heien gave his consent, and Darisse, aided by a fellow officer who had since arrived, began a thorough search of the vehicle. In the side compartment of a duffle bag, Darisse found a sandwich bag containing cocaine.