Ignorance of the law is no defense-even if someone makes a “reasonable” mistake. “An officer may make a mistake, including a mistake of law, yet still act reasonably under the circumstances,” the justices held.īut there’s a slight contradiction here.
#Barney fife driver#
Heien asks about the next step: What if the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the driver has done something that turns out not to be against the law? The North Carolina Supreme Court refused to suppress the cocaine, reasoning that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule wouldn’t apply.
#Barney fife free#
Under state law, a car’s only required to have “a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle.” Yes, “a stop lamp”-not “two brake lights,” as Deputy Darisse and most of the rest of us would assume.Īs interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment creates an exclusionary rule, under which an unconstitutional stop is a “poisonous tree,” and anything that is discovered in a search afterwards is tainted “fruit.” It can’t be used in evidence, and, as then-Judge Benjamin Cardozo wrote, “he criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.” There are exceptions there won’t be any exclusion when police make certain kinds of factual mistakes-a warrant that was improperly granted by a judge, for example, or clerical errors in the warrant itself-if the mistakes are reasonable and made in good faith.
#Barney fife code#
Ignorance of the law is no defense-even if someone makes a “reasonable” mistake.Īfter Vazquez and Heien were arrested, however, their lawyers made a startling discovery: North Carolina apparently hasn’t fully revised its automobile code since before the days of break lights.
#Barney fife full#
Darisse asked Heien for permission to search the car Heien agreed, and the officers found a baggie full of cocaine. If permission is refused, they can detain the driver and passengers for hours while they seek a search warrant and if the driver has committed any offense, even failing to wear a seat belt, they can make an arrest. Once they’ve made a valid stop, they can pull the driver and passengers out for a frisk bring in drug-sniffing dogs or ask “consent” to search the car without explaining that the driver has the right to refuse. Under the Fourth Amendment, police who want to stop a car need “reasonable suspicion” that someone in it has committed a crime. At that point, he noticed one brake light was out. Darisse followed the car until it came to a stoplight. It’s a little unclear, why, though: In court, Darisse reasoned that the driver “was gripping the steering wheel at a “10-and-two” position, looking straight ahead”-driving like a regular person, in other words. During his shift, Maynor Javier Vasquez drove by, with the owner of the car, Nicholas Heien, asleep in the back seat.ĭarisse became suspicious of Vasquez. On April 29, 2009, Surry County Sheriff’s Deputy Matt Darisse parked by Highway 77 working “criminal interdiction,” a term which seems to mean looking for folks who don’t look right. Coincidentally, speaking of Barney, this case happened in the hometown of actor Andy Griffith: Mt. North Carolina, a case to be argued Monday in front of the Supreme Court, will tell us whether Barney’s loophole is even bigger. The Court disagreed, and held that a police officer had validly arrested a man even though the warrant he relied on had been revoked months before. “There’s not a Barney Fife defense to the violation of the Fourth Amendment,” the legendary advocate Pamela Karlan once told the Supreme Court.
0 kommentar(er)
