by Meghan Jones, ACLU-NC Legal Fellow, and Chris Brook, ACLU-NC Legal Director
Can a police officer’s mistaken interpretation of the law justify a traffic stop? On Monday, October 6, 2014, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument on that question in the case of Heien v. North Carolina.
In 2009, Nicholas Heien was the passenger in a vehicle that had only one operating brake light. An officer pulled the car over, wrongly believing the vehicle was in violation of the law. North Carolina plainly requires only one rear brake light, as the North Carolina Court of Appeals recognized in 2011. That conclusion was so obvious that attorneys for the State did not dispute it before the North Carolina Supreme Court.
The fact that the State, defense, and both North Carolina appellate courts agreed Mr. Heien had not violated the law should have made for a straightforward legal inquiry. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to require an officer to have objectively reasonable suspicion that a law is being broken in order to conduct a traffic stop.
Yet, in spite of the fact that Mr. Heien’s vehicle was not breaking a single law, the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the traffic stop. The court concluded the officer’s mistake of law was “reasonable” and that to rule otherwise would hold officers to an unattainable standard of “omniscien[ce].”
Briefing to the United States Supreme Court in advance of oral argument, including an amici curiae brief from the ACLU, Cato Institute, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amply demonstrates why the decision in Heien cannot stand.
Anyone pulled over where the speed limit has recently changed knows “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” No driver can escape punishment by claiming he or she reasonably believed the law permitted certain behavior or by highlighting that he or she is not all-knowing. This ancient common-law concept serves the need for objectivity and uniformity among those who must abide by our laws. It is only fair that those charged with enforcing our laws––our sworn officers––be held to the same standard.
Failing to hold officers to the same standard as the public undermines a key component of effective law enforcement: public confidence. The pre-Heien regime resulted in regular trainings designed to keep officers versed in the law. But the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in Heien suggests that, if enough officers operate under a misapprehension of the law, such a mistake becomes reasonable. Instead of encouraging best practices, the North Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling excuses officer ignorance. By ceding the determination of what is “reasonable” to officers, the North Carolina Supreme Court eroded a core protection of the Fourth Amendment. The decision greatly expanded the potential number and frequency of otherwise unconstitutional traffic stops. This approach will only diminish the public trust in officers’ knowledge and authority over the long term.
Finally, in tying the constitutionality of a search to whether an officer’s mistake of law was “reasonable,” the North Carolina Supreme Court opens a Pandora’s box. What constitutes a “reasonable” mistake? The court provided very little guidance as to why the officer’s mistake in Heien was reasonable. It also provided very little guidance as to how future courts are supposed to determine whether a mistake was reasonable. Where there was a rule, now there is a guessing game. The lack of a clear standard to guide future cases could lead to arbitrary and uneven results.
Fundamental fairness demands holding officers to the same standard as the public when it comes to knowledge of the law. Doing so imposes no great burden on law enforcement; in fact, it increases their standing in the public’s eye. An objective standard based on what the law actually requires makes plain the rules of the road for the public, law enforcement, and the judiciary.
Anyone who supports officer accountability and fair application of the law should hope that the United States Supreme Court reverses the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in Heien and restores the Fourth Amendment’s protections. Otherwise, drivers somehow must obey laws an officer mistakenly believes to exist in order to avoid being pulled over––an untenable, unfair, and objectively unreasonable state of affairs.