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.
No it isn't a violation of the fourth amendment because his reasonable cause was that the back tail light was out. That was the only reason why he pulled over the car and asked to search the vehicle after the driver gave him the okay to do so.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the case should be completely thrown out. even though the law says that a driver requires one working brake light the cop felt that he had reasonable suspicion. Also it was a minor mistake and I think letting a person that has a bunch of cocaine in his car go because you pulled him over with only one brake light instead of two is a dumb thing to do.
ReplyDeleteSince the driver agreed to allow to officer to search his car i believe it is not a violation of the fourth amendment. The police officer had every right to pull over the car and had every right to search the vehicle with the drivers permission.
ReplyDeleteSince the driver agreed to allow to officer to search his car i believe it is not a violation of the fourth amendment. The police officer had every right to pull over the car and had every right to search the vehicle with the drivers permission.
ReplyDeleteehhs
ReplyDeletea
ReplyDeleteThe police officer's mistake of law did not give him reasonable suspicion that the fourth amendment requires to justify him stopping the car. The man was not breaking any law therefore the police officer had no right to pull him over. The state law only requires one working brake light so the cop should have never stopped him in the first place. If he did not stop him, he would have never found the cocaine. The officer should be more aware of the laws before pulling people over.
ReplyDeletethere was no mistake on it the actions taken by the police officer he ask if he could search the car and the guy agreed to it under his reasonable suspicion even though the guys agreed to the search i think he did the right thing plus he stop a drug trafficking which is a good thing i guess
ReplyDeleteNo it isnt a violation of the fourth amendment because the cop pulled the car over because the back tail light was out. That was the only reason why he pulled the car over and the officer asked to search the vehicle and the driver said yes. There is no violation of the fourth amendment.
ReplyDeleteNo it isnt a violation of the fourth amendment because the cop pulled the car over because the back tail light was out. That was the only reason why he pulled the car over and the officer asked to search the vehicle and the driver said yes. There is no violation of the fourth amendment.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a violation in the fourth Amendment because the driver did agree for the search seizure. The police officer was given the okay and has every right to search for any suspicion.
ReplyDeleteI do not think this is a violation of the 4th amendment. He saw the taillight was out and pulled them over. As he was questioning them and the stories didn't match up it gave him a reason to be curious.and check. They had illegal stuff so he did the right thing.
ReplyDeleteNo the police officer's mistake of the law does now provide the individualized suspicion that the fourth amendment requires to justify a traffic stop. The police office only stopped him because of the broken tail light. The law requires only one. It was not right that the police officer stopped the car then searched it since he should not have been stopped. It was not reasonable suspicion to stop the car. The guy should have never been stopped which means he would not have been caught for drugs.
ReplyDeleteNo the police officer's mistake of the law does now provide the individualized suspicion that the fourth amendment requires to justify a traffic stop. The police office only stopped him because of the broken tail light. The law requires only one. It was not right that the police officer stopped the car then searched it since he should not have been stopped. It was not reasonable suspicion to stop the car. The guy should have never been stopped which means he would not have been caught for drugs.
ReplyDeleteA police officer’s mistake of law provides the individualized reasonable suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop when the driver agreed to let the officer search his car. But I do not think the officer had a reasonable way of pulling him over due to if he had a broken taillight, the law is you can have one taillight out as well, yet Heines shouldn't have had 54.2 grams of cocaine..
ReplyDeleteA police officer’s mistake of law provides the individualized reasonable suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop when the driver agreed to let the officer search his car. But I do not think the officer had a reasonable way of pulling him over due to if he had a broken taillight, the law is you can have one taillight out as well, yet Heines shouldn't have had 54.2 grams of cocaine..
ReplyDeleteIt's not violating the fourth amendment because when the officer asked for permission to check his car and the driver allowed him to do it. It's the driver's fault for allowing the police officer to check. The police officer had the right to pull over the car because of the taillight and had the right to check since he was allowed to check the driver's car.
ReplyDeletethe police officer did not make a mistake because the driver of the car let him search the car. The fourth amendment states that if you agree to let the cop search your car it is okay.
ReplyDeleteIt's not violating the fourth amendment because when the officer asked for permission to check his car and the driver allowed him to do it. It's the driver's fault for allowing the police officer to check. The police officer had the right to pull over the car because of the taillight and had the right to check since he was allowed to check the driver's car.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a violation of the fourth amendment because the police officer asked the driver if he could search his car and the driver gave him permission. It would be a violation of the fourth amendment if the officer just began to search the vehicle without permission, because he did not have a warrant to search the vehicle.
ReplyDeletethe police officer did not make a mistake because the driver of the car let him search the car. The fourth amendment states that if you agree to let the cop search your car it is okay.
ReplyDeleteIf the man had consented to the search of his car, then how would it be a violation of the fourth amendment. He allowed the officer to do the search. Not to say the officer was right in his ignorance. Although his negligence of the law does not give him reasonable suspicion, the man's consent of the search made it okay.
ReplyDeleteIf the man had consented to the search of his car, then how would it be a violation of the fourth amendment. He allowed the officer to do the search. Not to say the officer was right in his ignorance. Although his negligence of the law does not give him reasonable suspicion, the man's consent of the search made it okay.
ReplyDeleteThe police isn't above the law. They should know the laws they enforce. The only suspicion was a broken tail light, which under North Carolina law, was allowed. The car shouldn't have been searched even if there was an illegal substance involved.
ReplyDeleteI think the people in the car are at fault because they allowed the officer to search the car. Even if the officer didn't have a reason to pull them over, they still allowed for the search.
ReplyDeleteI think that the officer's mistake of the law does not provide the individualized reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment. The officer made an inexcusable mistake, disregarding the law of needing only one functional brake light. The Fourth Amendment requires a reasonable suspicion or reason to do the search and had the officer known about the brake light law, he wouldn't have had the probable cause to search the car. Even though the passengers gave consent to do the search, it still contradicts the fact that they shouldn't even had been initially pulled over. This situation violated the Fourth Amendment, as there was no reasonable suspicion present to justify a search and seizure.
ReplyDeleteI think the people in the car are at fault because they allowed the officer to search the car. Even if the officer didn't have a reason to pull them over, they still allowed for the search.
ReplyDeleteI think that the officer's mistake of the law does not provide the individualized reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment. The officer made an inexcusable mistake, disregarding the law of needing only one functional brake light. The Fourth Amendment requires a reasonable suspicion or reason to do the search and had the officer known about the brake light law, he wouldn't have had the probable cause to search the car. Even though the passengers gave consent to do the search, it still contradicts the fact that they shouldn't even had been initially pulled over. This situation violated the Fourth Amendment, as there was no reasonable suspicion present to justify a search and seizure.
ReplyDeleteThe police officer made a minor mistake but the case should not be thrown out. The defendant broke federal drug laws and should face trial. He fully consented to a search of his own vehicle, therefore the cop did not violate his fourth amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is a violation of the fourth amendment because all of that happened just because of a busted tail light. The person only had probably cause and did not have a warrant or anything. But it was also the drivers fault because the driver let the officer search the car. If he had said no nothing really would have happened.
ReplyDeletethis is not a break of da 4th amendment b/c the kid told the officer the he is able to lookin da car givin him dose writes to find wat eva he needed to find so now he cant pled that
ReplyDeleteNo, the police officer's mistake of law did not give him reasonable suspicion that the fourth amendment requires to justify him stopping the car. The state law is that a police man can't stop a car if he has at least one working breaklight. The car did and the police man stopped him, technically for no reason. Therefore he had no reason to search his car if there were no laws being broken.
ReplyDeleteNo, the police officer's mistake did not break the amendment, but the kid did tell the officer he couldn't wait and needed to leave.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's not illegal to arrest someone if you are a police officer so this scenario is nonsensical. And, if it were somehow illegal to arrest someone, that's an easy fix by state legislatures since laws are defined by the government. But the Constitution (which allows the government to punish you for your ignorance of the law) is fixed on whether or not the government can receive the benefit of its own ignorance of the law.
ReplyDeleteIt's not illegal to arrest someone if you are a police officer so this scenario is nonsensical. And, if it were somehow illegal to arrest someone, that's an easy fix by state legislatures since laws are defined by the government. But the Constitution (which allows the government to punish you for your ignorance of the law) is fixed on whether or not the government can receive the benefit of its own ignorance of the law.
ReplyDeleteNo, the police officer's mistake does not give him reasonable suspicion which is required by the fourth amendment. The state law clearly states that a driver is able to drive with one brake light. There was no probable cause to even pull the man over. Although the men agreed, it still violates the fourth amendment. The police officer had no reason to search the car because no laws were broken and there was no probable cause.
ReplyDeleteThe police officer did violate the fourth amendment. The police stopped the car because the driver had a broken taillight, but only one taillight needs to work according to the law. The police didn't have a reason to stop his car in the first place, then they searched the car because of cocaine, but that is not why they were initially pulled over. The people in the car also should not have agreed to let the police search their car.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the police officer's mistake did not give him reasonable suspicion to search the car. North Carolina law requires only one working break light. This means that Heien should never have been involved in the stop leading to the discovery of the cocaine. The officer had no reason to search the car because the driver was not breaking any laws.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't violate the amendment because she gave her consent to search the vehicle. If there was probable cause or a warrant that the officer possesed then it's legal.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEven though the driver allowed the police man to search his car, therefore finding the cocaine, it was the mistake of the police man pulling the man over over a broken brake light. The law had said that vehicles only need one working break light so therefore the cop shouldn't have pulled over the driver.
ReplyDeleteYes this is a violation of the fourth amendment. The cop had no designated reason to pull the car over. The law doesn't require 2 working tail lights, so therefore pulling them over was unnecessary. Also, he did not have probable cause to search the vehicle. Although the men agreed to the warrantless search, they shouldn't of been pulled over in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe men in the car gave the officer consent to search their vehicle because the officer had suspicion that they where hiding something which in fact they were. Even though the police officer had no right to pull the vehicle over that does not affect the 4th amendment law therefor the police officer was completely correct with his actions of searching the vehicle.
ReplyDeleteThe police officer's mistake in the interpretation of the law did not give him probable cause to search the car. The offenders did not break any law and therefore, the car should not have been searched. This police officer should have known that the offenders did not break any law and if the officer is not reprimanded, then other police officers will ignore laws and pull over whomever they please.
ReplyDeleteThe police officer's mistake did not give him a reason to search the car because the law states that it is legal to have only one working break light and one break light should not draw suspicion enough to search the car.
ReplyDeleteThe police officer did not violate the fourth amendment.He saw that the car had a broken taillight and he had all the right to stop the car and he also saw that there was somebody lying down on the back seat with covered with a blanket so he does have a reason to ask for permission to search the car, He asked the man to search the car and he agreed so it is legal.He would have violated the fourth amendment if he didnt ask for permission.
ReplyDeleteI think that the police officer had no reason to search the car at all. The police officer had pulled the car over because of a broken taillight, but North Carolina law states that you only need one functional taillight. At the very most he should have just gave the driver a ticket and be done with it, but because Heien was laying down in the backseat and the police officer found 54.2 grams of cocaine in the car, that's why Heien was held accountable for two counts of trafficking cocaine.
ReplyDeleteThe police officer did not violate the fourth amendment.He saw that the car had a broken taillight and he had all the right to stop the car and he also saw that there was somebody lying down on the back seat with covered with a blanket so he does have a reason to ask for permission to search the car, He asked the man to search the car and he agreed so it is legal.He would have violated the fourth amendment if he didnt ask for permission.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a violation of the fourth amendment because the driver allowed the police officer to search the car.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe police officer’s didn't violate the Fourth Amendment because he gave her his consent to search the vehicle. If they didn't say yes to the officer to let him search then she would've violated the fourth amendment
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo this isnt a violation to the fourth amendment because the police officer asked for permission to check the car and the driver agreed. If the driver didnt want to be arrested he couldve just said no because police officers need permission to search a car, its not ok if the officer pulls someone over just because they look suspicious.
ReplyDeletethe officer should be suspended for lack of familiarity with the law however he had probable cause as the heigin guy was showing signs of drug use
ReplyDeleteThe officer's mistake does violate the Fourth Amendment. Although the driver gave the officer consent to search his vehicle, there was not a probable cause for the driver to be pulled over in the first place. In North Carolina the law only requires one taillight to be working and the drivers vehicle had one taillight out. The only reason the officer gave for pulling the driver over was because of the broken taillight which is not breaking the law. However, the driver of the vehicles actions should not be ignored and he should still be held responsible for breaking federal law.
ReplyDeleteNo this isn't a violation of the fourth amendment. The police officer shouldn't have asked for consent to search his car since a tail light being out is not illegal. Also, the tail light being out does not give him probable cause to search the mans car. Since the driver did give consent though he is technically at fault to because he could of just said "no". The drivers actions should not be excused either since he gave the officer permission knowing he had a large amount of cocaine in his car.
ReplyDeleteNo this isn't a violation of the fourth amendment. The police officer shouldn't have asked for consent to search his car since a tail light being out is not illegal. Also, the tail light being out does not give him probable cause to search the mans car. Since the driver did give consent though he is technically at fault to because he could of just said "no". The drivers actions should not be excused either since he gave the officer permission knowing he had a large amount of cocaine in his car.
ReplyDelete