Cops Can Be Mistaken…You Can’t, Part I
Most people have heard, or at least are familiar with, the maxim that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Indeed, if I am arrested for pointing a laser pointer at a uniformed safety officer, it makes no difference if I plead that, “I didn’t know it was illegal to point a laser pointer at a cop!” Texas Penal Code s8.03(a) provides that “it is no defense to prosecution that the actor was ignorant of the provisions of any law after the law has taken effect.” That’s right, folks, you are charged with knowing what is in the Penal Code, whether you are a lawyer or not.
(Mistake of fact is a different story. Needless to say, it gets messy: if I possess a substance that is not illegal to possess, but I believe what I have is heroin, can I be prosecuted? What about if I possess e-cig juice mistakenly believing that possessing e-cig juice is illegal, but it’s actually perfectly legal to possess—can I be prosecuted? Like I said, it’s a mess. I’ll discuss this sometime down the road…)
So, we know that you, me, and all of us are charged with knowing what the law is. That seems fair if you happen to be a criminal defense lawyer; less than fair if you happen to be an investment banker, electrician, or other non-criminal law profession. So, it would seem fair that cops should know what the law is too, right?
Consider this scenario: Shortly before 8 a.m. on a April morning in North Carolina, Maynor is driving his buddy Nick around. A cop sees them pass, and think Maynor looks a little suspicious. Now, we know from my last blog that a mere hunch—“hey, this guy looks a little suspicious”—is not sufficient to pull someone over or detain them. (See: LAST BLOG.) So, the cop decides to follow them for a bit. When Maynor slows down to make a curve in the road, the cop notices that only the left brake light comes on. BOOM! He lights them up, pulls them over, and a consensual search of the car turns up cocaine.
Cop says he pulled them over because they only had one brake light working, and the law—he believes—requires two working brake lights.
Defense lawyer files a motion to suppress. Defense lawyer knows North Carolina law only requires ONE brake light to be working.
Cop got it wrong. Stop is bad, so the cocaine should be tossed out, Defense Lawyer thinks.
What if it turns out North Carolina law only requires that a car be equipped with A brake light—not two brake lights like Cop thought—and Defense Lawyer is right? Bad stop and the cocaine is the product of an illegal stop and gets tossed out?
Let me put this question a different way: Can a cop be mistaken about what the law is? You can’t be. I can’t be. But can a cop be mistaken about what law is, such that—even though North Carolina law requires only ONE brake light, and the car he stopped had one brake light—the stop in the scenario above is valid? Tune in to Part II to learn the answer (Yes) and why this is the case.