North Carolina Criminal Appeal in US Supreme Court Poses Question of Whether Cops Can Make up the Law as They Go

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 6, 2014, in the criminal appeal case of Heien v. North Carolina. On April 29, 2009, Heien was pulled over for a traffic stop where he was the passenger. Heien was with his friend Vasquez. They each gave inconsistent stories about where they were going. Heien is the owner of the vehicle and consented to the search of his vehicle. Sergeant Darisse found cocaine in the vehicle and charged them with drug trafficking. Heien argued that Darisse did not have reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. The car only had one working rear brake light and Heien argued that the statute only calls for one working light. The language of the North Carolina statute is vague and the State argued that even if there was a mistake of law, the traffic stop was still valid.

Heien appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (COA) of North Carolina which interpreted the statute as requiring only one light. The COA stated that the stop then became invalid and illegal because of the police officer’s “mistake of law” about how many brake lights are required. The COA believed a mistake of law is automatically unreasonable and reversed the trial court’s decision. The Supreme Court of North Carolina decided those police officers should be able to make traffic stops on their reasonable interpretations of the law and reversed the COA’s decision. Heien then brought a criminal appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court will look to whether a mistake of law is enough to meet the reasonable suspicion standard required when initiating a traffic stop. Heien believes that police would take advantage of all ambiguities in the law and lack incentive to learn and act in accordance with the law if the stop of his vehicle is valid.

The decision in this criminal appeal case will be important in criminal law. The decision, in this case, will have an impact on criminal cases in Minnesota and how they are handled. Max Keller has handled many criminal appeal cases.  He has appealed many decisions to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Minnesota. Keller Criminal Defense Attorneys has won appeals in both the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court. If you are looking for an experienced criminal defense attorney to file a criminal appeal for you, contact Keller Criminal Defense Attorneys for a free consultation. There are many strict deadlines in the case of an appeal, so contact Max Keller as soon as possible.

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.