Firefighters in Tennessee let a home burn to the ground because the owners did not pay a $75 fire subscription fee.
WPSD-TV's Jason Hibbs reports.

By msnbc.com staff and WSMV-TV

SOUTH FULTON, Tenn. -- Firefighters stood by and watched a Tennessee house burn to the ground earlier this week because the homeowners didn't pay the annual subscription fee for fire service.

"You could look out my mom's trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance," Vicky Bell, the homeowner, said. For Bell, that sight was almost as disturbing as the fire itself. "We just wished we could've gotten more out," she said.

It's the second time in two years firefighters in the area have watched a house burn because of unpaid fees. Last year, Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in a house fire, along with three dogs and a cat, because the fire fee wasn't paid.

People in the city of South Fulton have fire protection, but those in the surrounding county do not unless they pay a $75 annual fee. The city makes no exceptions.

"There's no way to go to every fire and be able to keep up the manpower, the equipment, and just the funding for the fire department," said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker. Crocker said that by now, everyone should know about the city's fire policy. "After the last situation, I would hope that everybody would be well aware of the rural fire fees, this time," he said.

In a nearby county, rural homeowners can purchase a $110 subscription to cover fires, but they can also pay on the spot for fire protection: $2,200 for the first two hours firefighters are on the scene and $1,100 for each additional hour, according to dailytimes.com.

Bell and her boyfriend said they were aware of the policy, but thought a fire would never happen to them.

The city has received a lot of criticism over its policy, but has refused to change it.

Question:

Should firefighters let houses burn if the owners have not paid their annual fee for fire service? Answer in at least fifty words.

HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA

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 taillight. 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.

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Question 

Does a police officer’s mistake of law provide the individualized reasonable suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop? Answer in at least fifty words.