See complete ruling at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

 

*****

Docket No., 13-604

QUESTION PRESENTED:

Whether a police officer’s mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop.

Merit Briefs

• Brief for Petitioner, Nicholas Brady Heien
• Brief for Respondent, North Carolina
• Reply Brief for Petitioner, Nicholas Brady Heien

Amicus Briefs

• Brief for Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., U.S. Justice Foundation, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Free Speech Coalition, Free Speech Defenseand Education Fund, Western Journalism Center, The Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Policy Analysis Center, Downsize DC Foundation, and DownsizeDC.org in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Cato Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of North Carolina in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Professors Charles E. Maclean & Adam Lamparello in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Rutherford Institute in Support of the Petitioner
• Brief for the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the National District Attorneys Association, and the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the State of Wisconsin, Eighteen Other States, and the District of Columbia in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the United States in Support of Respondent

 

ALSO SEE SUPREME COURT BLOG:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/heien-v-north-carolina/

Term:

• 2010-2019
• 2014

Location: Interstate 77

Facts of the Case 

On April 29, 2010, Sergeant Darisse of the Surry County Sheriff’s Department observed Maynor Javier Vasquez driving north on I-77 with a broken brake light. When Darisse pulled over the vehicle, he noticed another man, Nicholas Heien, lying under a blanket in the backseat. Darisse spoke with the two men, felt that their stories did not match up, and was concerned that Heien had not gotten up from the back seat. Darisse asked for permission to search the vehicle. Heien agreed, and Darisse found a bag containing 54.2 grams of cocaine in the car.

A grand jury indicted Heien for two counts of trafficking cocaine. Heien filed a motion to suppress the evidence discovered during the search of his vehicle, and the trial court denied the motion. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that the traffic stop was not objectively reasonable because North Carolina law only required one working brake light. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed and held that when an officer’s mistake of the law is reasonable, it may give rise to the “reasonable suspicion” required for a warrantless search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment. That North Carolina Supreme Court sent the case back to the state Court of Appeals.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court’s judgment. A dissenting judge, however, stated that the North Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling created “fundamental unfairness” because it held citizens to the traditional rule that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” while allowing police to be ignorant of the law. Based on this dissent, Heien again appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court which rejected Heien’s appeal.

Question 

Does a police officer’s mistake of law provide the individualized reasonable suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop?

Argument

Heien v. North Carolina – Oral Argument

Go to:  http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_604