State v. Heien
214 N.C. App. 515
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Heien pled guilty to attempted trafficking in cocaine by transporting and by possession on 26 May 2010; trial court found Level I prior and sentenced two consecutive terms of 10–12 months.
- Sergeant Darisse conducted criminal interdiction on I-77, observed a vehicle with a driver who appeared nervous, and noted the right brake light was out, prompting a stop.
- Vasquez, the driver, was questioned; Defendant, the passenger, initially remained in the back seat; Vasquez was warned for the brake light issue and then allowed to leave.
- Vasquez consented to additional questioning and asked for a search; Vasquez stated no contraband; Defendant consented to a search and officers found cocaine.
- Defendant moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court denied; appellate writ of certiorari was granted to review the suppression ruling.
- The dispositive issue is whether the initial stop was constitutional based on the brake-light defect and applicable statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. | State contends brake-light defect violated statutes, justifying stop. | Heien argues no statute violation; stop unlawful. | Stop invalid; no statutory violation justified the stop. |
| Whether N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-129(g) governs single brake light as stop lamp. | State relies on § 20-129(g) to justify stop. | Defendant argues malfunction did not violate stop-lamp rule. | Single functioning brake light suffices; malfunctioning brake light did not violate § 20-129(g) at stop. |
| Whether § 20-129(d) rear lamps or § 20-183.3 safety inspection create reasonable suspicion. | State posits that malfunctioning brake light violated § 20-129(d) or § 20-183.3. | No violation by statute; cannot justify stop. | No reasonable suspicion under § 20-129(d) or § 20-183.3; stop unsupported. |
| Whether the suppression ruling was properly decided. | Court denied suppression; State on appeal relies on statute interpretation. | Evidence should be suppressed due to illegal stop. | Trial court erred; suppression reversed and case remanded for dismissal. |
| Whether the stop being invalid affects the admissibility of the search | Illegally seized evidence should be suppressed. | Search sin not addressed if stop invalid. | Not explicitly stated beyond suppression reversal; focus on stop illegality. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Roberson, 163 N.C.App. 129, 592 S.E.2d 733 (2004) (appeals suppression review standards; findings of fact binding; de novo legal questions)
- McLamb v. State, 186 N.C.App. 124, 649 S.E.2d 902 (2007) (stop based on mistaken belief of speeding not objectively reasonable)
- State v. Jackson, 199 N.C.App. 236, 681 S.E.2d 492 (2009) (detention of vehicle with reasonable suspicion; Fourth Amendment)
- Huyck Corp. v. Town of Wake Forest, 86 N.C.App. 13, 356 S.E.2d 601 (1987) (de novo review of legal conclusions from findings of fact)