Heien v. State of North Carolina

[Shellback]

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.

While the SCOTUS doesn't specifically say that he gave ALL the items back, the NC Supreme Court decision does; from page 3 of the NC Supreme Courts decision: After learning that his drivers' license and registration checked out, Sergeant Darisse returned Vasquez's documents and gave him a warning ticket for the brake light.

When working interdiction giving ALL the documents back is important because it indicates to the citizen that the traffic stop is over. If a citizen engages the officer anymore after that its a totally voluntary encounter...not a seizure.

You're right, obviously. But, we all know how this works. The uniform, the right questions, intimidation factor, etc. and most people don't realize they have the freedom to leave of their own volition. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people would think that they're not clear to leave at anytime until the officer specifically states such.

I also realize that consensual encounters are a very valuable tool to catch bad guys. Interesting conversation thus far.

[KeeFus]

You're right, obviously. But, we all know how this works. The uniform, the right questions, intimidation factor, etc. and most people don't realize they have the freedom to leave of their own volition. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people would think that they're not clear to leave at anytime until the officer specifically states such.

I also realize that consensual encounters are a very valuable tool to catch bad guys. Interesting conversation thus far.

That used to be the case...not so much anymore. I stopped a 20 year old white female a few weeks ago that I knew was a pill popper. I also knew she had been arrested for similar charges involving trafficking in prescription pills (huge problem here BTW). I got her stopped and wrote her a citation for speeding and no registration. After giving her all her documents and the citation I asked for consent to search. She flatly refused the consent search, locked her car doors, and started walking. I could have arrested her because of the speeding and registration violation (both misdemeanors) but I still would not have been able to search the car because of Arizona v. Gant. From the Belton v New York (1981) decision until Arizona v Gant (April 21, 2009) SCOTUS decision I would simply have arrested her and searched the car.

All that to say people aren't as ignorant as they make themselves out to be.

[Shellback]

That used to be the case...not so much anymore... All that to say people aren't as ignorant as they make themselves out to be.

Interesting example. Thanks!

[John Hearne]

Summary of the case from PATC:

The issue that arose was whether the single faulty brake light gave the officer reasonable suspicion to stop the car in the first place. Under the North Carolina law, a vehicle was only required to have a single brake light thus, in actuality there was nothing illegal in having a single defective light as long as the other light was working.

In its review of the case, the Court noted that the State had not challenged the interpretation of the statute as requiring only one working brake light. The Court went on to note however that other provisions of the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Code could lead to a reasonable misunderstanding by a law enforcement officer. The Court cited another provision of the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Code that indicated that required all originally equipped lamps be functional.

The Court found that reasonable suspicion can rest on a reasonable mistake of law by the officer. In rejecting Heien's argument that the maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" the Court explained that this criminal law concept would apply if Heien were appealing a ticket based on the brake light out, but does not apply to the determination of whether the officer had reasonable suspicion.

The Court concluded that based on the review of several provisions of the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Code, the officer's misunderstanding was reasonable and therefore his actions were based on a reasonable mistake of law. The evidence was properly admitted.

[ssb]

OK. So a civilian rolling with a single broken tail light gets a pass because the law was ambiguous. But the cop making a RAS stop must somehow divine the "true meaning" of that law, or his RAS stop is illegal?

If he's not clear on the meaning of the law, how can he be sure that there's a violation happening? If there's doubt to be had, why isn't the officer trying to get some clarification? He is not in a position where he should be "divining the 'true meaning' of [the] law" -- we have courts and legislatures for that. Finally, in the case of one civilian stopping another civilian, the civilian who isn't acting on behalf of the government ought to be the one who gets the benefit of the doubt, not the other way around. The two are not on equal footing: when there's doubt, the private citizen -- and not the government/police officer -- in my mind has the stronger interest (individual liberty interest against an unreasonable seizure), and thus should be the one to reap any benefit.

[ToddG]

If he's not clear on the meaning of the law, how can he be sure that there's a violation happening?

It wasn't a matter if being unsure. It was a good faith mistake due to confusing contradictions in the state code. As the Court explicitly said, in the reverse situation the driver could not have been held culpable of committing the crime of having a light out.

[ssb]

It wasn't a matter if being unsure. It was a good faith mistake due to confusing contradictions in the state code. As the Court explicitly said, in the reverse situation the driver could not have been held culpable of committing the crime of having a light out.

Point, but that has never been what I was addressing in any of my posts in this thread.

The post was specifically directed at MDS's question of "But the cop making a RAS stop must somehow divine the "true meaning" of that law, or his RAS stop is illegal?"

[MDS]

Point, but that has never been what I was addressing in any of my posts in this thread.

The post was specifically directed at MDS's question of "But the cop making a RAS stop must somehow divine the "true meaning" of that law, or his RAS stop is illegal?"

And let me see if I can be more explicit. These are all legitimate and interesting questions, by the way, so I hope no one gets the impression that I'm being argumentative! I have a relatively uninformed opinion, and it's great to be able to put it through the wringer here in civilized company.

So. The specific Constitutional protections that we're discussing are inappropriate stops, and searches that would have been appropriate if the stop were appropriate. No one here would have any problems if Heien's stop would have been for something that was actually illegal, right? And if the stop were for something that is clearly not illegal, like wearing a turban or having tattoos, then everything that follows would have been poisoned fruit, right? I think we can all agree on those.

But what happens when the stop is for something that, while technically legal, could reasonably have been interpreted to be illegal, based on a reasonable reading of the law? Obviously, the subject would not be convicted at trial, because what he did was not, in fact, illegal. But would everything that follows this stop be poisoned fruit?

SCOTUS and I don't think so, because the poison comes from a willful disregard of a citizen's rights. A reasonable mistake of fact doesn't poison anything, so why should a reasonable mistake of law?

As to whether ambiguous laws should exist, I agree with you. But there they are. AFAIK neither you nor I care enough to, say, run for public office and try to actually change that. As long as there are ambiguous laws, cops are stuck right there with the rest of us, trying to interpret them as best we can. Nothing gets poisoned because of an objectively reasonable misinterpretation - not our otherwise clean criminal records, and not a search that follows an otherwise clean stop.

[ssb]

SCOTUS and I don't think so, because the poison comes from a willful disregard of a citizen's rights. A reasonable mistake of fact doesn't poison anything, so why should a reasonable mistake of law?

Because the Court has held that it's perfectly acceptable to hold us to a perfect knowledge of the law, even though you and I both know that to have such knowledge is a practical impossibility based on the sheer number of laws alone, much less any ambiguities contained in those laws. I'll re-iterate my agreement with Sotomayor's argument that the circumstances which justify excusable mistakes-of-fact are not present with mistakes-of-law (see page 3 of her dissent). I don't feel that a mistaken interpretation of the law -- despite the presence of good faith -- should ever form the basis of RAS that a crime may have been committed, and thus justify a seizure. I think that if a seizure is unjustified, then anything gleaned from that seizure -- to include the fruits an otherwise-valid consent search -- should not be admissible, because I think the bad seizure is the but-for cause of obtaining that evidence. The two would not have come into contact had the officer not made a mistake, however reasonable that mistake may be. While Keefus may be correct that Heien was not "seized" at the point the consent search occurred, I would counter that the definition of "seizure" has traditionally been "when a reasonable person would feel unfree to leave," note that I would not drive off with a cop at my window after I'd been pulled over because that strikes me as a great way to potentially have some very bad things happen, and further note that to me, it seems like the line between seizure and consensual encounter is somewhat blurred given what had just happened (the traffic stop).

The rebuttal to all of that, of course, can be found in the first paragraph on page 12 of the Heien opinion and is now the law of the land. I disagree, despite my knowledge that the basis for that disagreement flies in the face of several bits of precedent found in other Exclusionary Rule and seizure cases. Further, I think it's too narrow of a construction to state that (paraphrasing) "this wasn't an 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' deal because the driver wasn't convicted of having a broken tail light." We can run around in circles on this if you'd like, but as it stands, legally you guys are in the right.

[MDS]

Because the Court has held that it's perfectly acceptable to hold us to a perfect knowledge of the law

Nope. Not perfect. Not in cases where the law is ambiguous. We get the benefit of the doubt when the law says "one tail light must work" and "all tail lights must work." A reasonable person could interpret that law law to mean "one tail light must work," so we'd get a pass if we drove around with a single tail light. By the same token, a reasonable person could interpret that law to mean "all tail lights must work" so the cop and his RAS gets a pass if he stops someone for a broken tail light.

It sounds like you're kind of done with this debate and I can respect that. But I hope you'll continue until you hammer into my thick skull the ability to at least understand your complaint about this...