Reasonable Suspicion for a Stop Can Arise from a Mistaken Understanding of the Law

The police cannot pull you over in a traffic stop if they do not have reasonable suspicion that you broke the law. To be clear, the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution gives you the right against unreasonable search and seizure, and the US Supreme Court has determined that, in order for a warrantless stop and search to occur, the police must have reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop and probable cause (which is greater than reasonable suspicion) to conduct a search. But what happens when the police think they have reasonable suspicion  —  and they subjectively believe they have reasonable suspicion  —  even though the law actually says that they do not?

This is the basic question that the Supreme Court considered in the case Heien v. North Carolina (2014), and the Court’s decision ruled that law enforcement officers can lawfully stop a vehicle based on their reasonable suspicion, even if their reasonable suspicion comes from a misunderstanding of the law. Our Indianapolis criminal defense lawyers can explain this case in more detail, which is a law enforcement-friendly decision.

Learning About the Facts of Heien v. North Carolina

In Heien, a police sergeant was following a vehicle that only had one working brake light. The sergeant believed he had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle because he believed state law required a vehicle to have both brake lights functioning. When the sergeant stopped the vehicle, he asked for consent to search the vehicle, which the owner and driver, Heien, consented to. The sergeant found cocaine and then arrested Heien.

It turned out that state law only required a single functioning brake light. As such, Heien had not actually violated state law by driving with only one functioning brake light. Heien then argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the sergeant did not actually have reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. The prosecution argued that, because the sergeant believed the law required vehicles to have two functioning brake lights, and that this misunderstanding of the law was reasonable, the sergeant did actually have reasonable suspicion and Heien’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.

When a Law Enforcement Officer’s Mistake of Law is Reasonable, That Law Enforcement Officer Has Reasonable Suspicion and There is No Fourth Amendment Violation

The Supreme Court ruled that, because the sergeant’s mistake of law was a reasonable mistake, the sergeant still had reasonable suspicion to make the stop and there was no Fourth Amendment violation.

The Court reasoned that law enforcement officials must act reasonably but not “perfectly.” And when an error or mistake of law is reasonable, the law enforcement officer is still behaving in a reasonable manner that can allow for that officer to have reasonable suspicion.

Contact Our Indianapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys Today for Help with Your Case 

Were you recently stopped in a traffic stop that ultimately resulted in your arrest for a criminal offense under the Indiana Code? If so, it is critical to seek legal help with your defense as soon as possible. Although the Supreme Court has generally given broad authority to law enforcement when it comes to determining what constitutes reasonable suspicion  —  as Heien suggests  —  you may be able to prove that there was no reasonable suspicion to allow for the stop that led to your arrest, or that your Fourth Amendment rights were violated in another way.

It will be important to discuss the details of the stop with an experienced Indianapolis criminal defense lawyer at Rigney Law LLC who can assess whether the law enforcement officer was actually permitted to make a stop and a subsequent arrest, or whether your Fourth Amendment rights may have been violated. As we discussed above, the police must have reasonable suspicion to conduct a warrantless traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment and probable cause to conduct a warrantless search. Contact our firm today for assistance with your defense.

Sources: 

Heine v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014)

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/574/54/