 The case pertained to a traffic stop initiated on Nicholas Heien in North
Carolina, on account of a broken tail light. The stop and search of the vehicle,
conducted by the officer after the initial citation, yielded a good amount of
cocaine. Heien was charged with drug trafficking.
The problem? According to North Carolina traffic law, only one tail light needs
to be functional. That means the initial stop, justified on these grounds, would
have been illegal — and so would the seizure of the cocaine found in Heien’s
car.
Heien filed a lawsuit to suppress the evidence of cocaine possession based on
this fact, according to the Supreme Court ruling, and was eventually vindicated
by the state Court of Appeals. But that was overturned by the North Carolina
State Supreme Court and brought to the nation’s highest court on appeal.
The final ruling examined whether the misunderstanding of the law would be
considered “reasonable” for an officer to make.
The majority opinion issued Dec. 15 and written by Chief Justice John Roberts
found that police officers only need to “reasonably believe” something is
against the law to pull someone over. Effectively, this means cops can pull you
over even if you haven’t broken a law.
“I understand the idea that when, you know, 99 people out of a hundred think you
have to have two brake lights, like you do everywhere else in the country, that
it’s reasonable for the police officer to think that,” said Roberts during oral
arguments, siding with the police.
“The government’s basic argument is that it was reasonable to pull over the
driver based on the law as it was believed to be at the time; the officers who
made the stop weren’t acting culpably or wrongly based on the situation they
confronted,” wrote Orin Kerr, professor of law at the George Washington
University Law School.
[to top of second column] |
 Critics of the case point to a certain amount of double standard
when it comes to knowing the law for citizens and police officers.
“The result is a system in which “ignorance of the law is no excuse”
for citizens facing conviction, but police can use their own
ignorance about the law to their advantage,” notes the legal brief
on the case by a coalition of civil rights organizations, including
American Civil Liberties Union and Cato Institute, a libertarian
think tank.
The brief filed with the Supreme Court argues the decision made by
the North Carolina State Supreme Court was “inconsistent with the
logic that applies to factual mistakes committed by law enforcement
and erodes civil liberties, all while undermining police authority
and safety.”
“Citizens are presumed to know and understand the laws in every
jurisdiction in which they drive,” notes the brief. “Thus, the North
Carolina Supreme Court’s rule exempts police officers from the ambit
of the presumption exactly when it is most likely to vindicate
constitutional protections.”
So while police officers are sworn to uphold, execute and enforce
the law, that doesn’t mean they need to understand it completely to
carry out traffic stops and eventual arrests on citizens.
[This
article courtesy of
Watchdog.]
Click here to respond to the editor about this
article.
 |
