Police Overreach
For my assignment, I have chosen an article by the Huffington Post from 10/6 outlining a Supreme Court case regarding police discretion. I picked this for multiple reasons; one being that the defendant is claiming that his 4th amendment rights were violated due to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, both of which we have covered in class. The other being that it also poses some interesting questions about antiquated laws in my home state of NC that might end with police discretion and the good faith doctrine being severely limited compared to its current state.
Nicholas Heien was arrested after an officer discovered cocaine in his car during a traffic stop due to one of his two brake lights being broken. Originally, Heien consented to the search and the case seemed open and shut. However, the defendant is now claiming the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine- saying that the initial stop was illegal because North Carolina law only mandates that one of two brake lights be operational. The state, however, argues that the Good Faith exception applies, as the officer was not aware of this little known law. They are also arguing that the officer could use discretion as to whether the vehicle was safe to operate. On the other hand, Heien’s lawyers claim that just as ignorance is no defense for citizens, it should not be a defense for police officers.
We covered the exclusionary rule through Weeks v US and Mapp v Ohio, which made it law for the US and the States respectively. We also discussed the Fruit of the Poisonous tree Doctrine in Silverthorne v US and Wong Sun v US. The good faith exception that the state is claiming stems from Herring v US, which makes evidence obtained through illegal measures admissible as long as the officer had no mal intent. If the court is to find that the evidence was in fact obtained in violation of FOTPT, then in will almost certainly be excluded as a violation of the defendents 4th amendment.
Personally, I think that the case will result in in both police discretion and the good faith doctrine being at least somewhat limited. The SC would not have taken the case unless they wanted to make an example against police overreach, and there is enough turmoil to do so. I also do not believe that this was a good use of the good faith doctrine, which should be limited to police miscommunications and such as opposed to an ignorance of the law. Therefore his confession should be thrown out and this case will serve as a limiter to police power.