www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference."
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard oral arguments in and will rule on the 4th Amendment case of HEIEN v. North Carolina in 2015. The ruling, either way, will have significant implications for many types of criminal cases and particularly DUI and DWI (Drunk Driving) cases, as well as drug cases.
In the Heien case, a law enforcement officer pulled over a vehicle in which Nicholas Heien was a passenger, (see, State v. Heien, 737 S.E. 2d351, 352 (N.C. 2012). The officer (Sgt. Matt Darisse of the Surry County, N.C. Sheriff's Department) claimed he initiated the stop because one of the rear brake lights was not working properly on the vehicle.
While speaking to Heien and the driver of the vehicle (Maynor Javier Vazquez) during the stop, the officer became "suspicious" of the young men because Vazquez and passenger apparently gave inconsistent stories about their destination. Upon receiving consent from vehicle's owner, Heien, the officer searched the car and found a sandwich bag containing cocaine.
After discovering the cocaine, officer Darisse placed both Vazquez and Heien under arrest and charged them with trafficking cocaine. Heien in his defense sought to suppress the evidence that had been taken from his car, arguing that the initial traffic stop was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because the officer had misinterpreted the law.
As a matter of first impression, an appellate court determined that the relevant statutes require vehicles to have at least one working brake light (which Heien’s car had) and ruled that the search of Heien’s car was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed, finding that the traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment since the officer’s mistake was objectively reasonable.
In Brinegar v. United States (1949), the Supreme Court explained that police officers must be given some room for operating under mistaken facts—as long as they are reasonable. For example, in Maryland v. Garrison (1987), police officers obtained a warrant to search Lawrence McWebb’s apartment on the third floor of a building without realizing there were two apartments on that floor. The Supreme Court upheld the search of Harold Garrison’s apartment on that floor (where evidence of criminality was uncovered), noting that the officers’ mistake of fact as to which apartment was covered by the warrant was objectively reasonable.
North Carolina argues that the same logic applies to mistakes of law, but Heien maintains that the reasonable suspicion standard leaves no room for an officer’s mistaken interpretation of the law.
[see, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/13-604/Heien v. North Carolina; http://www.nccourts.org/courts/Apellate/Supreme/Default.asp/Heien v. North Carolina; www.scotus-blog.com/case-files/cases/heien-v-northcarolina]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com. "Here to make a difference." We can help you. Guaranteed.
Among his numerous other legal awards and honors such as "America's Best Attorneys and Counselors", U.S. Super Lawyer, "Top Lawyers in America", Top Attorneys and Counselors in the U.S., "Top Lawyers in Maryland", and winner of the national "Charles Hamilton Houston Award for Outstanding Litigation", premier criminal defense attorney Charles Ware is recognized and ranked by hi many satisfied clients as well as his legal peers as "One of the 10 BEST DUI and DWI Attorneys in the State of Maryland," as confirmed from research, surveys and other investigation by The American Institute of DUI and DWI Attorneys [AIDUIA] --- a respected national organization of trial lawyers.
Attorney Ware is also the founder and senior partner of the Maryland-based national business, criminal defense and civil trial law firm Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC. For an initial courtesy consultation, call Mr. Ware at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
No comments:
Post a Comment