Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Traffic Stop Based on Reasonable Mistake of Law is Not Illegal
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Traffic Stop Based on Reasonable Mistake of Law is Not Illegal
See People v. Gaytan, 2015 IL 116223 (May). Episode 073 (Duration 21:40)
It turns out that a traffic stop based on reasonable mistake of law is not illegal. What happens when a police officer stops a car based on the officer’s mistaken interpretation of a traffic law?
Can an officer’s mistaken interpretation of the law support a seizure?
Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct Download
APPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS
SPOTIFY ANDROID RSS
DIRECT DOWNLOAD
The United States Supreme Court case of Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014), held that “reasonable suspicion can rest on a mistaken understanding of the scope of a legal prohibition.” Heien, 135 S. Ct at 536.
What Happened in Heien?
That case involved a cop …
* Pulling over a car
* With one working taillight
* Car was searched and
* Defendant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine.
That traffic law, however, was also found to be ambiguous.
The Supreme Court specifically found that when a police officer pulls over a car based on an “objectively reasonable, although mistaken, belief” that a traffic law was being violated the fourth amendment is not violated. Id.
The court went on to say that:
“To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some, mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them ‘fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.’ Id. citing Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176 (1949).
Reasonable Mistakes of Law
The Court went on to explain that:
*** Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on either ground. Whether the facts turn out to be not what was thought, or the law turns out to be not what was thought, the result is the same: the facts are outside the scope of the 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.” Id. at 135 S. Ct. at 536.
The Illinois Supreme Court Follows Suit
Well,
View all episodes
By Police NuggetsSee People v. Gaytan, 2015 IL 116223 (May). Episode 073 (Duration 21:40)
It turns out that a traffic stop based on reasonable mistake of law is not illegal. What happens when a police officer stops a car based on the officer’s mistaken interpretation of a traffic law?
Can an officer’s mistaken interpretation of the law support a seizure?
Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct Download
APPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS
SPOTIFY ANDROID RSS
DIRECT DOWNLOAD
The United States Supreme Court case of Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014), held that “reasonable suspicion can rest on a mistaken understanding of the scope of a legal prohibition.” Heien, 135 S. Ct at 536.
What Happened in Heien?
That case involved a cop …
* Pulling over a car
* With one working taillight
* Car was searched and
* Defendant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine.
That traffic law, however, was also found to be ambiguous.
The Supreme Court specifically found that when a police officer pulls over a car based on an “objectively reasonable, although mistaken, belief” that a traffic law was being violated the fourth amendment is not violated. Id.
The court went on to say that:
“To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some, mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them ‘fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.’ Id. citing Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176 (1949).
Reasonable Mistakes of Law
The Court went on to explain that:
*** Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on either ground. Whether the facts turn out to be not what was thought, or the law turns out to be not what was thought, the result is the same: the facts are outside the scope of the 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.” Id. at 135 S. Ct. at 536.
The Illinois Supreme Court Follows Suit
Well,