Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate 4th Amendment.....

[treestar]

114. Can't find decision online yet

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/13-604

The issue was:

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

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

On April 29, 2009, Sergeant Matt Darisse of the Surry County Sheriff’s Department in North Carolina pulled over a vehicle in which Nicholas Heien was a passenger. Darisse initiated the stop because one of the rear brake lights on the vehicle was not working properly. While speaking to Heien and the driver of the vehicle, Maynor Javier Vazquez, during the stop, Darisse became suspicious of the young men because Vazquez and Heien gave inconsistent stories about their destination. Upon receiving consent from Heien, who owned the vehicle, Darisse searched the car and found a sandwich bag containing cocaine. After discovering the cocaine, Darisse placed Vazquez and Heien under arrest and charged them with trafficking cocaine.

Heien moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his vehicle, arguing that the State violated his rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Under North Carolina law, Heien argued, vehicles are required to have only one working rear brake light, and, because Heien’s car had one working rear brake light, Darisse did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop. The statute at issue, N.C.G.S. § 20-129 states, “[n]o person shall sell or operate on the highways of the [North Carolina] any motor vehicle . . . unless it shall be equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle.” However, another subsection of this statute, which Darisse relied upon when making the stop, requires that “[e]very motor vehicle . . . have all originally equipped rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order, which lamps shall exhibit a red light plainly visible.” Despite the ambiguity in the Vehicle Light Statute, the trial court denied the motion to suppress the evidence of cocaine, ruling that Darisse had reasonable suspicion that the driver was violating a North Carolina law by driving with a dysfunctional brake light. Therefore, the trial court found that stop was constitutional.

It could all have been avoided without the consent. Don't consent! Demand the citation for the break light and go to court and get it dismissed.