This is the case from North Carolina State. Maynor Javier Vasquez driving with a broken brake light on April 29, 2010 and Sergeant Darisse of the Surry County Sheriff's Department stopped the vehicle. As the officer approached the vehicle, he noticed that there was someone lay down on the back seat and he found out that the guy name is Nicholas Heien. The two men told him different stries and the officer asked permission to check on the vehicle. Heien agreed, and the officer found a bag containing 54.2 grams of cocaine in the car. Furthermore, the officer reported it and the 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, because North Carolina law only required one working brake light but the trial court denied the motion (Washington Post). Background The Supreme Court has handed down Heien vs.
…show more content…
North Carolina case. There was a violation of the Fourth Amendment when the officer pull over the vehicle because of the mistaken belief that caused the driver gets in trouble. However, Heien think that he was not guilty because under North Carolina law because in North Carolina State, the drivers only required have one working brake light but the officer found cocaine when he searched the vehicle that make the case was a little bit more complicated than we thought. The officer got more suspicious to the two men after he found the cocaine and it is called reasonable suspicion. The officer was trying to figure out if it is the combination of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. In this case, the officer probably reasonably mistaken and this could be because of lack knowledge of the officer about the state law.There is no reason, under the text of the Fourth Amendment or our precedents, why this same result should be acceptable when reached by way of a reasonable mistake of fact, but not when reached by way of a similarly reasonable mistake of law (Washington Post, Par. 3). On December 15, 2015, in a close 8-1 vote decision, The Court held that a search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when an officer has made a reasonable factual or legal mistake even though the officer found a bag of cocaine in the vehicle (Oyez, Conclusion Par. 1). A court tasked with deciding whether an officer’s mistake of law can support a seizure thus faces a straightforward question of statutory construction. If the statute is genuinely ambiguous, such that overturning the officer’s judgment requires hard interpretive work, then the officer has made a reasonable mistake (Washington Post, Par. 9). Opinions of Justices Chief Justice Roberts concluded that searches and seizures based on a police officer’s reasonable misunderstanding of the facts and it has the wrong interpretation according to the law. However, the officer cannot get any benefits of Fourth Amendment because of his lack knowledge about the law. Justice Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion but added a concurrence, which was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She emphasized that the state law in question poses a quite difficult question of interpretation, and Sergeant Darisse’s judgment, although overturned, had much to recommend it (Oyez.com) Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented. She said the court’s ruling means further
North Carolina case. There was a violation of the Fourth Amendment when the officer pull over the vehicle because of the mistaken belief that caused the driver gets in trouble. However, Heien think that he was not guilty because under North Carolina law because in North Carolina State, the drivers only required have one working brake light but the officer found cocaine when he searched the vehicle that make the case was a little bit more complicated than we thought. The officer got more suspicious to the two men after he found the cocaine and it is called reasonable suspicion. The officer was trying to figure out if it is the combination of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. In this case, the officer probably reasonably mistaken and this could be because of lack knowledge of the officer about the state law.There is no reason, under the text of the Fourth Amendment or our precedents, why this same result should be acceptable when reached by way of a reasonable mistake of fact, but not when reached by way of a similarly reasonable mistake of law (Washington Post, Par. 3). On December 15, 2015, in a close 8-1 vote decision, The Court held that a search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when an officer has made a reasonable factual or legal mistake even though the officer found a bag of cocaine in the vehicle (Oyez, Conclusion Par. 1). A court tasked with deciding whether an officer’s mistake of law can support a seizure thus faces a straightforward question of statutory construction. If the statute is genuinely ambiguous, such that overturning the officer’s judgment requires hard interpretive work, then the officer has made a reasonable mistake (Washington Post, Par. 9). Opinions of Justices Chief Justice Roberts concluded that searches and seizures based on a police officer’s reasonable misunderstanding of the facts and it has the wrong interpretation according to the law. However, the officer cannot get any benefits of Fourth Amendment because of his lack knowledge about the law. Justice Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion but added a concurrence, which was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She emphasized that the state law in question poses a quite difficult question of interpretation, and Sergeant Darisse’s judgment, although overturned, had much to recommend it (Oyez.com) Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented. She said the court’s ruling means further