Today in Supreme Court History: December 15, 1791

12/15/1791: First Ten Amendments ratified.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (decided December 15, 2014): police can stop you for something they think is illegal but actually isn't (here, broken brake light, not an offense under state law; upon consensual search of car they found cocaine)

Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (decided December 15, 2008): Maine statute prohibiting false advertising as to cigarettes (here, one brand falsely alleged it had less "tar" and nicotine than another) not preempted by federal statute prohibiting restrictions on advertising of cigarettes which are properly labeled as to health dangers

General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (decided December 15, 1997): trial court's rulings as to admitting expert testimony (here, as to whether exposure to PCBs "promoted" plaintiff's cancer) are reviewed as to abuse of discretion (this is the traditional standard, now being applied in the context of the guidelines announced in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993)

[F.D. Wolf]

A police officer’s belief that something is illegal must still be reasonable. For example, if an officer pulled over a car for driving 45 mph where he honestly believed the speed limit was 40 mph, though it was in fact 50 mph (e.g., perhaps it had been changed that day), that would not constitute a legal stop, and any contraband from a search of that car would be suppressed.

In the Heien case, the officer pulled over the car for having only one working brake light. After a consensual search, cocaine was discovered. Heien appealed his conviction. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, concluding in a very dubious interpretation in my opinion, that state law only required one working brake light. (Good luck passing a vehicle inspection with a broken brake light). In short, while one statute referenced "a" stop light, two others referred to “all” originally-equipped rear lights being in working order.

Regardless, the state appealed to the state supreme court, though it chose not to appeal the appeal court’s statutory interpretation. (This indicates a prosecutor looking to make law, not just win his case). So, the only issue before the North Carolina Supreme Court was whether the stop, though made on an erroneous legal interpretation, was supported by “reasonable suspicion”. The court held that it was, and the United States Supreme Court affirmed.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I wouldn't drive in NC w/a broken taillight and expect to be free from police stops.

But given the way the case was set up, the US Supreme Court had to accept that a broken taillight wasn't an offense.

Operating under that premise, the Court seems to me quite wrong to excuse the cops for not knowing the law.

What if it *were* illegal to have a broken taillight, but the driver didn't know this? Would the driver be allowed to get away with it?

[Dan Schiavetta]

That’s what struck me about this case. What happened to “ignorance of the law is no excuse”?

[F.D. Wolf]

The key word in the Fourth Amendment is "unreasonable". So, the only operative question for a court is, "Was this search or seizure reasonable?" Obviously, people might honestly disagree over the answer to that question in any given search or seizure, but there is no constitutional or logical reason the answer should turn exclusively on whether or not a statute was technically violated.

For example, a police officer hears through the door of an apartment a man and woman loudly arguing and things breaking. The woman screams, "Help! He's going to kill me!" The officer busts into the apartment only to discover the couple are actors filming a movie. So, should he have to ignore, or a court have to suppress, evidence of another crime in plain view, like a quantity of illegal drugs?

A court, looking at all the surrounding circumstances, should begin by asking, "Did the officer act reasonably?" It should not begin with a post hoc analysis of whether anything the officer heard or observed before he entered the apartment ultimately turned out to be actually illegal.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Seems like you’re discussing a different issue.

[F.D. Wolf]

Courts often make Fourth Amendment analysis overcomplicated. A court can spend four pages minutely analyzing statutes to determine whether it's legal to drive with only one functioning brake light, but ultimately it simply doesn't matter. It should have just asked if the traffic stop was reasonable. A policeman is not expected to have the training to parse statutes like a judge. The question is whether the policeman's interpretation of the law was reasonable, not whether it was ultimately correct. And if his interpretation of the law was reasonable, then the traffic stop was reasonable, and therefore, in compliance with the Fourth Amendment.

[Dan Schiavetta]

This "reasonable person" defense can be used by civilians in civil liability matters. But they can't use it when a criminal statute is involved. Unlike the police, if they do something illegal, the "I reasonably believed it was legal" argument doesn't fly.

[F.D. Wolf]

I think that's apples to oranges. The Fourth Amendment sets a reasonableness standard for searches and seizures; it doesn't speak to standards in other aspects of law. Of course, it only provides the minimum standard; legislatures are certainly free to provide heightened standards.

[Frank Drackman]

Ted Logan and Bill Preston's " Be Excellent to Each Other" didn't make the cut, to bad, could have saved a bunch of Un-excellence.