Police can use evidence seized during mistaken traffic stops, Supreme Court rules

PatreonGlobal Watchdog is reader-supported, with no advertisers and no government entity to answer to. If you enjoyed this article, you can help keep it coming with a one-time donation or monthly support: Support on PatreonDonate on Ko-fi
Share this article:

3 min read

Last updated

By Travis Daub

The US Supreme Court October 1, 2010 , i

WASHINGTON — Police can use evidence seized during a traffic stop even if it turns out the officers initially pulled a car over based on a misunderstanding of the law, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 8-1 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts said that such a stop does not violate the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches.

The ruling came in a North Carolina case in which a police officer pulled over Nicholas Heien’s car because the right brake light was out, although the left one still worked. A consensual search led to the discovery of cocaine in the trunk.

A state appeals court said the stop was impermissible because a quirky state law only requires a car to have one functioning brake light. But the state’s highest court reversed, finding that the officer’s mistaken reading of the law was reasonable.

The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the Fourth Amendment requires police to act reasonably, but not perfectly. Roberts said that just as a police officer’s mistake of fact can justify a traffic stop, a reasonable misunderstanding about the law can also satisfy the Constitution.

The ruling means Heien can’t try to overturn his conviction for drug trafficking by suppressing the drug evidence found in his car.

Heien had argued that ignorance of the law is no excuse for citizens accused of crimes and said there shouldn’t be a double standard for police. But Roberts said that simply means the state can’t impose a punishment for something that isn’t illegal.

“Heien is not appealing a brake-light ticket,” Roberts said. “He is appealing a cocaine-trafficking conviction as to which there is no asserted mistake of fact or law.”

Heien was a passenger when his car was pulled over on a North Carolina highway in 2009 because the right brake light was out. Officer Matt Darisse of the Surry County Sheriff’s Department issued a warning citation over the light to the driver, Maynor Javier Vasquez.

Darisse then asked for permission to search the inside of the car and Heiein consented. The search revealed a plastic sandwich bag of cocaine in the trunk.

Roberts said the officer’s decision to stop the car in the first place was reasonable given the confusing way in which the law was worded. Under North Carolina’s decades-old law, all cars made after 1955 are required to have a “stop lamp” that can be part of “one or more other rear lamps.” But no court had ever interpreted the law in the modern era to require only one working brake light.

“I suspect most of you here were surprised to learn that only one brake light is required in North Carolina, even if you are from North Carolina,” Roberts said Monday as he read his opinion from the bench.
“I suspect most of you here were surprised to learn that only one brake light is required in North Carolina, even if you are from North Carolina,” Roberts said Monday as he read his opinion from the bench.

Both the state and the Obama administration had argued that refusing to allow such stops would inject too much uncertainty into the daily actions of police in the field who need to make quick decisions. Reasonable mistakes of law are acceptable, they argued, especially when dealing with a complex law that might be subject to different interpretations.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the lone dissenter. She said an officer’s mistake of law “no matter how reasonable, cannot support the individualized suspicion necessary to justify a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.”

The notion that the law “is definite and knowable sits at the foundation of our legal system,” Sotomayor said. “And it is courts, not officers, that are in the best position to interpret the laws.”

The post Police can use evidence seized during mistaken traffic stops, Supreme Court rules appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Via:: PBS News Hour

Keep the watchdog independent

If this article saved you money, time, or a headache, if you enjoyed it, or if you want to support local investigative journalism, you can buy me a coffee by card. No account needed, and Ko-fi takes no cut, so it all goes to the work.

Buy me a coffee

Prefer steady support? Join the Patreon for monthly backing.

Dr. Alan Wood
Dr. Alan Wood

Musings of an unabashed and unapologetic truth-seeker. Crusader against obscurantism. Optimistic curmudgeon, snark jockey, lovably opinionated purveyor of wisdom and truth. Multilingual world traveler and part-time irreverent philosopher who dabbles in writing, political analysis, and social commentary. Attempting to provide some sanity and clarity to complex issues with a dash of sardonic wit and humor. Thanks for visiting!

My byline rests on 24 years in the classroom: three years teaching in Japanese junior and senior high schools, ten years as an associate professor at Japanese universities, and eleven years teaching Spanish in Georgia public schools. I hold a PhD in Linguistics, and my EduLingo line of Spanish, ESOL, and French teaching resources is on Teachers Pay Teachers.

Enjoying Global Watchdog? Become a monthly supporter on Patreon and help keep independent journalism free for everyone — no paywall, no intrusive ads. Winston approves.

Articles: 597

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2026 Global Watchdog Media And Commentary. All rights reserved.