249 N.C. App. 493
N.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- On June 12, 2014, Deputy Aaron Billings observed a Tennessee-registered Ford Crown Victoria on US-421 lacking an exterior driver-side mirror and initiated a traffic stop.
- Billings and his supervisor (Lt. Greer) believed N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-126(b) required a driver-side exterior mirror; both were unaware the statute applies only to vehicles registered in North Carolina.
- Defendant consented to a vehicle search; officers found 73 grams of crack cocaine and 12 grams of marijuana; Defendant later admitted awareness of the drugs.
- Defendant was indicted for trafficking and related charges and moved to suppress evidence obtained from the stop; the trial court denied the motion, finding the officer made an objectively reasonable mistake of law under Heien.
- Defendant entered an Alford plea reserving the suppression issue, was sentenced, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an officer's mistake of law can supply reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment | The State: Officer reasonably (objectively) but mistakenly believed § 20-126(b) applied to an out-of-state vehicle, supplying reasonable suspicion under Heien | Eldridge: The statute unambiguously exempts out-of-state vehicles; the officer’s mistake was not objectively reasonable, so the stop lacked reasonable suspicion | Court reversed: § 20-126(b) is unambiguous (requires NC registration), so the officer’s mistake was not objectively reasonable and the stop was unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (an officer’s reasonable mistake of law can support reasonable suspicion, but mistakes must be objectively reasonable)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (investigatory stops require reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- United States v. Stanbridge, 813 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2016) (Heien does not justify misinterpretation of an unambiguous statute)
- State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132 (1982) (appellate review of suppression rulings: factual findings binding if supported by competent evidence)