I. The Initial Stop Was Constitutional And Did Not Violate

1785 WordsMay 5, 20178 Pages
I. THE INITIAL STOP WAS CONSTITUTIONAL AND DID NOT VIOLATE APPELLANT 'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS BECAUSE POLICE OFFICER EXECUTING THE STOP REASONABLY THOUGHT THAT CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE WAS BREACHED The Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable seizures under the fourth amendment. The stop of the individual by the law enforcement does not constitute an unlawful seizure because it was reasonable within the meaning of Heien and therefore suppression is not warranted. Section A evaluates that the initial bicycle stop was reasonable because the officer reasonably thought appellant violated the California Vehicle Code. Section B identifies that even if the initial detention was unconstitutional the doctrine of the fruit of the…show more content…
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 534 (U.S. 2014). A traffic stop for a suspected violation of law is a ‘‘seizure’’ of the occupants of the vehicle and therefore must be conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 536. Seizures based on mistakes of fact may be reasonable. Id. at 532. All parties agree that to justify this type of seizure, officers need only ‘‘reasonable suspicion’’—that is, ‘‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped’’ of breaking the law. To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them “fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.” Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. Id. at 536. Courts do not examine the subjective understanding of the particular officer involved. The Fourth Amendment tolerates mistakes and preserves probable cause if "those mistakes—whether of fact or of law—[are] objectively reasonable." Id.

More about I. The Initial Stop Was Constitutional And Did Not Violate

Open Document