Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Reasonable Legal Mistakes

by Sherry F. Colb

In my Verdict column for this week, part one of a two-part series, I consider a case on which the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari, Heien v. North Carolina.  In Heien, police stopped a vehicle on the basis of reasonable suspicion to believe that one of the vehicle's brake lights was not functioning.  Once the police stopped the vehicle, they obtained consent for a search and subsequently found evidence of drug trafficking.  On appeal, however, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the traffic law in North Carolina actually permits a vehicle to have only one working brake light.

The North Carolina Supreme Court assumed (but did not decide) that the Court of Appeals was correct in its interpretation of North Carolina law regarding brake lights.  Nonetheless, the state high court found that the officer's mistake of law -- if it was a mistake at all -- was a reasonable one and that when an interpretation of the law is objectively reasonable in this context, a police may lawfully rely on it to justify a valid stop, for Fourth Amendment purposes.

In my column, I take up the question whether the North Carolina Supreme Court was correct in its ruling regarding reasonable mistakes of law.  The column proposes that the good faith doctrine might provide an alternative (or even superior) basis for admitting the drug trafficking evidence that was the fruit of a stop based on a reasonable but erroneous understanding of the traffic law.  But I do not, in my column, take seriously the possibility that the drug trafficking evidence found in this case might actually be inadmissible. Here I discuss why I dismiss that possibility.

The argument that the evidence in this case was inadmissible is not a frivolous one.  If police perform a seizure of a person (which a traffic stop represents) in the absence of evidence that the person has committed an actual, existing offense, then police arguably lack a factual basis for stopping the vehicle.  Without a factual basis, police perform an unreasonable seizure, and the consequence of performing an unreasonable seizure is the suppression of the resulting evidence as the fruit of the poisonous tree.

If the Supreme Court were writing on a clean slate (at least as of 1961), I would expect this to be the result in the Heien case.  It is, almost by definition, an "unreasonable" seizure to seize someone for violating a nonexistent law, even if the police officer holds a reasonable (though incorrect) interpretation of the law.  The way that courts respond to unreasonable seizures is to suppress resulting evidence.  The victim of the Fourth Amendment violation is entitled to as much, a means of restoring the status quo ante the violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

The Court, however, has long rejected the notion that people who experience Fourth Amendment violations are in any way "entitled" to the suppression of resulting evidence.  Starting at least in 1976, the Court has characterized the exclusionary rule -- which provides for the suppression of unconstitutionally obtained evidence -- as (1) not required by the Fourth Amendment itself and therefore discretionary with the Court, (2) exclusively a vehicle for deterring the police from violating the Fourth Amendment, and thus (3) best applied in circumstances that maximize the odds that suppression will yield better police compliance with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment.

This thinking has been part of the Court's approach to exclusion for decades, and the degree to which a majority holds this view -- one that is overtly hostile to the application of the exclusionary rule in any given context -- has only increased over time.  This is, for example, what accounts for the relatively recent expansion of the good faith exception.

Given this thinking, I have a hard time imagining that the Court would see fit to suppress evidence that was obtained as a direct result of unimpeachably reasonable behavior by the police.  Since it was reasonable for the police officer to believe that it was illegal to drive with one non-functioning brake light, the officer did nothing culpable, reckless, or even negligent by stopping a driver whose brake light appeared not to be functioning.  What, then, would there be for the exclusionary rule to deter here, and how could whatever minor deterrent value it might have possibly be worth the cost?

Whether the Court calls the police conduct a  technical Fourth Amendment violation that we cannot penalize because it is not culpable, or whether the Court calls it a valid stop under the Fourth Amendment, I am therefore confident that the Court will not find any deterrent value to suppressing the resulting evidence of drug-trafficking. For it to do so would represent a marked departure from the path it has been following for some time, and there is nothing to suggest this sort of departure.

8 comments:

pvine said...

Heien is an easy case.

So long as the officer has an objectively reasonable belief that his conduct (in stopping the vehicle) was authorized under the law, the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement has been satisfied.

Thus, only in cases where the law clearly prohibits the officer's conduct will such conduct be deemed unreasonable. If the law is ambiguous as to whether or not the officer can act, his conduct will be deemed reasonable so long as an objectively reasonable officer in his position would have been justified in acting.

At least five members of the Court will adopt this rule. They will include the majority in last week's Navarette opinion.

There is no principled distinction between an objectively reasonable mistake of fact and an objectively reasonable mistake of law. The reasonableness of both depend upon whether or not a hypothetical objectively reasonable officer could, under the circumstances at hand, have made that mistake. If they could have, then the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement has been satisfied.

pvine said...

Professor Colb,

Your assertion that "the consequence of performing an unreasonable seizure is the suppression of the resulting evidence" is absolutely incorrect.

A unified Court majority has made it clear that the remedy of suppression will only be applied to unreasonable conduct by the cops if the cops conduct was sufficiently culpable.

Thus, mere negligence by the cops is not enough to trigger the remedy of suppression. Rather, a higher degree of wrongdoing is required. Flagrant, intentional, misconduct would suffice. But grossly negligent conduct may not.

Rose Warissa said...

There is no principled distinction between an objectively reasonable mistake of fact and an objectively reasonable mistake of law. The reasonableness of both depend upon whether or not a hypothetical objectively reasonable officer could, under the circumstances at hand, have made that mistake. If they could have, then the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement has been satisfied. buy fifa 14 coins  lol elo boost  fifa coins online  league of legends boost

Shak Olreal said...

Thus, only in cases where the law clearly prohibits the officer's conduct will such conduct be deemed unreasonable. If the law is ambiguous as to whether or not the officer can act, his conduct will be deemed reasonable so long as an objectively reasonable officer in his position would have been justified in acting.http://www.fifacoinshome.com
http://www.fifacoinshome.com/PC-Coins.html
http://www.fifacoinshome.com/PS3-Coins.html
http://www.fifacoinshome.com/PS4-Coins.html
http://www.fifacoinshome.com/XBOX-Coins.html
http://www.fifacoinshome.com/IOS-Coins.html
http://www.fifacoinshome.com/Android-Coins.html
http://www.fifacoinshome.com/news.html
http://www.fifacoinshome.com/feedback.html

奇堡比 said...

新女性徵信
外遇調查站
鴻海徵信
亞洲徵信
非凡徵信社
鳳凰徵信社
中華新女性徵信社
全國新女性徵信社
全省女人徵信有限公司
私家偵探超優網
女人感情會館-婚姻感情挽回徵信
女子偵探徵信網
女子國際徵信
外遇抓姦偵探社
女子徵信社
女人國際徵信
女子徵信社
台中縣徵信商業同業公會
成功科技器材
女人國際徵信社
女人國際徵信
三立徵信社-外遇
女人國際徵信
女人國際徵信
大同女人徵信聯盟
晚晴徵信

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

amine lahragui said...


thanks so much for that great blog and thanks also for accepting my links thanks
طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه
thanks so much i like very so much your post
فوائد الحلبة فوائد الزنجبيل فوائد الرمان فوائد زيت السمسم علاج البواسير فوائد البصل فوائد اليانسون فوائد الكركم فوائد الزعتر قصص جحا تعريف الحب علامات الحمل

aminos lahragui said...


thanks so much i like very so much your post
حلى الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورته حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق