Heien v. North Carolina | State of North Carolina v. Coleman | Reasonable Mistake of Law

December 16, 2014 by
Heien Exception

Reasonable Mistake of Law Exception to the 4th Amendment

The United States Supreme Court decided the case of Heinen v. North Carolina on December 15, 2014.  The holding of the case is that the Fourth Amendment is not violated when a police officer makes a traffic stop(seizure) upon a reasonable, but mistaken, belief that a law has been violated.  The standard set forth by the Supreme Court is whether it is “objectively reasonable for an officer in [the searching officer’s] position to think that the conduct violated the law.”

The Supreme Court decision focuses on the text of the statute itself.  It is likely that the application of the Heien exception will be extremely rare and only applicable when the text of the statute is ambiguous, complex or novel.

However, we are not without guidance as there is already case law from North Carolina applying the Heien decision rendered by the North Carolina Supreme Court to a pending state court matter.  The case is State of North Carolina v. Rudolph Coleman.  I argued the Coleman motion to suppress in District Court and it was denied.  Jane Weatherly and I were members of the same PLLC.  She argued the Coleman motion to suppress in Superior Court and it was denied.  The Coleman case was reversed by the North Carolina Court of Appeal.  The Court of Appeal specifically addressed the Heien decision in its opinion and detailed why the Heinen exception does not apply.  Much like the United States Supreme Court ruling, the Court of Appeal focused on the statutory language and compared the difference between the tail light statute and the open container statute.    The North Carolina Court of Appeal ruled that the open container statute was clear, unambiguous and that the officer’s lack of knowledge did not make it “reasonable” in light of the Heien decision.

The Coleman decision may be the only case at this point in time which can provide some clarification as to the application of the Heinen exception.   The relevant analysis can be found on pages 7 through 11 of the appellate decision below.

[gview file=”https://yourfloridacriminalattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/State-of-NC-vs-Rudolph-Coleman.pdf” save=”1″]

 

For additional information, please contact

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 East Broward Boulevard #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525 or
The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 2 S Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286

or

The Law Offices of Jane L. Weatherly, Attorney at Law, PLLC, 5 West Hargett Street, Raleigh, NC 27601 (919)615-3408

 

Filed Under: 4th Amendment, Criminal Lawyer, DUI Lawyer, Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, Search and Seizure, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

DUI Checkpoints | What is the Law? | What are Your Rights?

September 24, 2014 by
DUI Checkpoints Constitutional

DUI Checkpoint Ahead

DUI Checkpoints, Your Rights and The Law

I have seen a lot of articles and videos recently regarding DUI checkpoints.  I have been asked a lot of questions regarding checkpoints.  People want to know their rights.  What do they have to provide to the police?  Do they have to roll down their window?  I will get to the answer right away and then the analyze the issues.

The Answer under Florida Law:

“Moreover, as the state points out, a driver who is lawfully stopped for a DUI checkpoint is under a legal obligation to respond to an officer’s requests for certain information and documents, and the driver’s refusal to respond to these requests may constitute the misdemeanor offense of obstructing or opposing an officer. See § 843.02, Fla. Stat. (1991). See also Burkes v. State, 719 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); K.A.C. v. State, 707 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); In the Interest of J.H., 559 So.2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); M.C. v. State, 450 So.2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). If a driver engages in obstructive conduct, in violation of section 843.02, then standard police detention and arrest procedures, rather than checkpoint guidelines, would govern the officer’s handling of the situation.”  Rinaldo v. State, 787 So.2d 208 (Fla. App., 2001)

Issue 1: Cop Baiting | Don’t be Stupid

The vast majority of the checkpoint videos that I have recently seen on Youtube involve what I call “cop baiting.”  “Cop baiting” is when an individual does something stupid with the intent on getting under the cops skin and then turning around and acting like a victim when the officer gets upset.  Cop baiting is not the simple act of being disrespectful towards a police officer.  Cop baiting is going out of your way to intentionally provoke a response from a police officer.  I have no sympathy for anybody who intentionally provokes a response from a police officer whether it be foul language or a smack upside the head.

Most of the videos that I have seen involve individuals refusing to roll down their windows, refusing to provide their license and refusing to answer questions claiming that the checkpoint is somehow unconstitutional under the United States Constitution.  I won’t post any of those videos here because I don’t want to spread their idiocy.  Many people have been arrested and convicted of resisting an officer in the performance of his official duties, or similar statutes, by refusing to cooperate with officers at a DUI checkpoint.  If you choose to resist or obstruct an officer at a checkpoint you will probably get arrested.  When you do get arrested, you will have to post bail and hire an attorney.  So your 1 minute of looking like an idiot on Youtube just cost you $5,000.  It will cost you $5,000 even in the unlikely event that you beat the charge.

Issue 2: Checkpoints Are Permissible Under the United States Constitution

The United States Supreme Court case ruled that checkpoints are permissible under the 4th Amendment in Michigan Dept. State Police vs. Sitz in 1990.  The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, ruled that a state has a “substantial government interest” to stop drunk driving, and that checkpoints are rationally related to achieving the goal of stopping drunk driving. The Court also ruled that the impact on drivers from being stopped at a checkpoint was de minimus, that the time a motorist is delayed from reaching his or her destination is negligible, and that brief questioning  in order to determine if there is “reasonable suspicion” that a driver is impaired also is not a significant impairment of the drivers’ Fourth Amendment right. The court balanced the interest of the state in combating drunk driving with the individuals Fourth Amendment rights and held that checkpoints were permissible.

There have been further cases which restrict how checkpoints can be conducted.  In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 50, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2640, 61 L.Ed.2d 357, 361(1979). The Supreme Court stated that the trial court must look to “(1) the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, (2) the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and (3) the severity of the interference with individual liberty.”   Other cases that significantly modified how a checkpoint can be conducted are:

  • Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 40-42, 121 S. Ct 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333, 343(2000);
  • Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 81, 121 S.Ct. 1281, 1290, 149 L.Ed.2d 205, 218(2001);
  • Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 427, 124 S.Ct. 885, 890, 157 L.Ed.2d 843, 852(2004).

However, all of the foregoing cases involve how the checkpoints were setup and operated.  This is information that your attorney will get after you are arrested.

Issue 3: State Laws can be More Restrictive

Ironically, when Michigan Dept. State Police vs. Sitz was remanded to the Michigan Supreme Court, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution for the State of Michigan provided additional protections for drivers than the United States Constitution.  Consequently, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints were not permitted pursuant to the State Constitution rather than the United States Constitution.

The states are also free to implement legislation regarding checkpoints as long as the legislation more restrictive towards the state as opposed to attempting to overturn the Supreme Court by state legislation.  In my opinion, a perfect example of this prohibited legislation is found in North Carolina Statute 20-16.3A(d).  The statute states, “The placement of checkpoints should be random or statistically indicated, and agencies shall avoid placing checkpoints repeatedly in the same location or proximity. This subsection shall not be grounds for a motion to suppress or a defense to any offense arising out of the operation of a checking station.”

This legislation is designed to avoid motions to suppress based on an allegation that the checkpoint was not narrowly tailored to meet its objectives.  I no longer practice law in North Carolina and can not give any legal advice regarding North Carolina law.  However, it appears that one Judge agreed with me that the law was unconstitutional.

[gview file=”https://yourfloridacriminalattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Order-Granting-Motion-to-Suppress-DUI-Checkpoint.pdf” save=”1″]

So What Are My Rights?   What do I do if I am Stopped at a Checkpoint?

Assuming that checkpoints are legal in your state, you must comply with the officer’s requests.  For example, providing drivers license, registration and proof of insurance.  The Sitz case makes it very clear that the officer’s have the right to ask you limited questions.  As I wrote above “brief questioning  in order to determine if there is ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a driver is impaired also is not a significant impairment of the drivers’ Fourth Amendment right.”

So they can ask, but you do not have to answer if your answer may incriminate yourself.  You still have your 5th Amendment rights.  If you haven’t been drinking or you aren’t coming back from a bar, simply tell them you are coming back from grocery shopping(tell the truth) and be on your way.  If you feel that your answer may incriminate you, don’t answer.  In some circumstances, they may let you go and in some they may arrest you on an obstruction charge or maybe a DUI.  There is nothing you can do to help yourself at that point.  Let your attorney handle it.

Most importantly, ROLL DOWN THE WINDOW!  This seems to be all the trend on the cop baiting videos.  The police officer cannot ask you questions with your window rolled up.  If it is cracked the officer will claim he couldn’t hear you.  Maybe you interfered with the states right to determine reasonable suspicion because he couldn’t tell if there was an odor of alcohol.  Who knows what the police officer will say, but if you obstructed, you get arrested.

So do as follows:

  • ROLL DOWN YOUR WINDOW so the officer can communicate with you;
  • Be polite;
  • Provide the police officer with your license, registration and insurance;
  • If the answers won’t lead towards incriminating yourself, answer the questions and be on your way;

DO NOT DO AS FOLLOWS:

  • Enter into a debate with the police officer over the constitutionality of checkpoints;
  • Make any incriminating statements.  If where you were or what you were doing had to do with anything that could be perceived as illegal, simply state “I am not going to answer any questions without a lawyer present.”  You may get arrested anyways, but that is what attorneys are for.
  • Do not take the roadside sobriety exercises.  You are under no obligation to do so.  Simply say “No thank you officer.  I am not going to take any tests.”
  • I don’t think that I am allowed to advise anybody NOT TO TAKE THE BREATHALYZER, if it is a second refusal or more, refusing to take the breath test is a criminal offense.
  • If you are going to shut up, then shut up.  The more you talk the more evidence the police will have;
  • DO NOT GO ON COP BAITING EXPEDITIONS!

Fort Lauderdale DUI Attorney, Michael Dye, represents individuals charged with all types of felonies and misdemeanors including, but not limited to contempt of court.  For more information, please contact Mr. Dye at his Fort Lauderdale or Miami office:

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 East Broward Boulevard #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525 or
The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 2 S Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286

 

 

 

 

Filed Under: 4th Amendment, Criminal Lawyer, DUI Checkpoints, DUI Lawyer, Search and Seizure Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

DUI Investigations Phase II | Face-to-Face Contact

August 30, 2014 by
DUI Investigation

DUI Investigation Phase II

Fort Lauderdale DUI Attorney | Miami DUI Attorney

Phase II DUI Investigations | Personal Contact

At the beginning of Phase II, the police officer has already seen how the driver was operating the vehicle and noted “cues” of impairment if any.  There are many times when an Officer does not detect any cues during Phase I.  It is important to illicit the fact that the officer did not witness any Phase I cues and therefore did not have reason to believe that this was a DUI stop.  Checkpoints and accidents are common scenarios when a police officer does not witness any Phase I cues that’s why lawyers in these situations are common and you can find the best online at sites like https://www.harrybrownlaw.com/atlanta-motorcycle-accident-injury-attorney.  It is not abnormal for an officer to see a car driving and pull the car over for an infraction without witnessing a Phase I cues.

Face to Face Contact

In phase II of a DUI investigation, an officer will observe and interview the driver face to face in order to determine if there is reason to continue with the DUI investigation.  Some departments mandate that any individual suspected of DUI must exit the vehicle.  Accordingly, the interview that takes place during this phase can be done with the suspect inside or outside of the vehicle.  NHTSA guidelines specifically state that Phase II can be initiated without Phase I.  Specific examples given by NHTSA include roadblocks and accident scenes.

Divided attention questions are a commonly used technique by law enforcement to assist with making a determination of impairment.  The questions are designed to determine your ability to focus on two tasks at the same time.  “May I see your license and registration?”  “What is your name and date of birth?”  As you are looking for your license and registration, the police officer is going to be watching for signs of impairment such as if you pass by your license in your wallet as well as indicators of physical impairment such as “fumbling fingers.”  and other indications that your mental and physical faculties are impaired.

NHTSA does not list the statistical correlation to impairment for Phase II cues.  Nevertheless, the following behaviors and observations are indicated as consistent with impairment:

• Bloodshot eyes;

• Soiled clothing;

• Fumbling fingers;

• Alcohol containers;

• Drugs or drug paraphernalia;

• Bruises, bumps or scratches;

• Unusual actions;

• Slurred speech;

• Admission of drinking;

• Inconsistent responses;

• Unusual statements;

• Abusive language;

• Anything else;

• Alcoholic beverages;

• Marijuana;

• Cover up odors;

• Other unusual odors;

The “typical” DUI report states a “strong odor of alcohol coming from the defendant’s breath; red bloodshot, glassy eyes and slurred speech.  As is with the cues in Phase I, it is most effective to focus on the things that the defendant did correctly.

If the officer notices one or more of these indications, the officer will inform you that he is going to begin a “DUI Investigation.”  When the police officer tells you that he is going to conduct a “DUI Investigation”, the investigation is already complete and the officer has made his arrest decision.  The standardized field sobriety exercises in Phase III are simply a means of gathering additional evidence of guilt and do not have much of an impact, if any, on the arrest decision.  You are under no legal obligation to take the roadside sobriety exercises.  It is never a good idea to take them.  You cannot prove your innocence.  You can only dig yourself a deeper hole.

DUI Attorney, Michael Dye received additional training in the administration and interpretation of the SFST’s from Doug Scott, a pioneer in the field of the Drug Recognition Expert Program, who is recognized as an expert in the administration and interpretation of the SFST’s.  Mr. Dye has the most current version of the NHTSA SFST Student Manual and actively utilizes it as reference and impeachment material in both depositions and trials.  Mr. Dye has cross examined the arresting officer regarding the SFST’s in over 20 trials and numerous depositions.  For more information, please contact Mr. Dye at his Fort Lauderdale or Miami Office:

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 E Broward Blvd #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525 or
The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 2 S Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286

Next: Phase III DUI Investigations – SFST’s

 

 

 

 

 

Filed Under: 4th Amendment, Criminal Lawyer, DUI Lawyer, Roadside Sobriety Tests, Search and Seizure, Standardized Field Sobriety Tests Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Roadside Sobriety Exercises | Standardized Field Sobriety Tests

July 29, 2014 by
DUI Attorney

Police officer incorrectly administering the SFST’s.

DUI Attorney Miami | Criminal Lawyer Miami

Prior to being arrested for a DUI, and sometimes afterwards, the police often ask a defendant to submit to a series of exercises in order to determine the individual’s sobriety.  These exercises are known as the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests or SFST’s for short. The SFST’s is a series of 3 tests that the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration has determined can be used to identify impairment in an individual.  The officer demonstrates and then observes the defendant perform the exercises.  The officer is trained to identify certain indicators of impairment that can be used to establish probable cause for an arrest or to simply pile on additional evidence of impairment.

The exercises must be administered and evaluated in a standardized fashion in order to ensure an accurate result.  The tests were developed by NHTSA in conjunction with the Southern California Research institute.  There are only 3 SFST’s that are statistically correlated to impairment.  Those tests are the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, the Walk-And-Turn and the One-Leg Stand.   These 3 tests are to be administered the same way every single time and evaluated through the use of strict criteria limiting an officer’s discretion as to what is a “pass” or what is a “fail.”

The unfortunate reality is that the standardized administration and evaluation of the SFST’s is largely ignored by police departments and individual police officers.  The exercises are frequently administered and evaluated incorrectly leading the officer to form an opinion that can not be validated by any of the studies or research.  Additionally, officers that are not properly trained often use improvised exercises that have been found to have no correlation to impairment.  The most common of these tests are the “finger to nose” test, any test involving the alphabet and a wide variety of different counting exercises using your fingers.  Do not be mistaken, those tests are not approved to detect impairment.  Many DUI attorneys are not familiar with the concepts involved with the SFST’s.

When consulting with a criminal lawyer concerning your DUI case, you should ask the lawyer:

1)  Are you familiar with the SFST’s?

2)  What additional training have you received in the administration and interpretation of the SFST’s?

3)  Do you own a copy of the NHTSA SFST Manual?

4)  Approximately how many trials have you had where you cross examined the arresting officer concerning the NHTSA criteria?

DUI Attorney, Michael Dye received additional training in the administration and interpretation of the SFST’s from Doug Scott, a pioneer in the field of the Drug Recognition Expert Program, who is recognized as an expert in the administration and interpretation of the SFST’s.  Mr. Dye has the most current version of the NHTSA SFST Student Manual and actively utilizes it as reference and impeachment material in both depositions and trials.  Mr. Dye has cross examined the arresting officer regarding the SFST’s in over 20 trials and numerous depositions.

For additional information, please contact

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 E Broward Blvd #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525 or
The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 2 S Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286

Filed Under: 4th Amendment, Criminal Lawyer, DRE, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI Drug, DUI Lawyer, Roadside Sobriety Tests, Search and Seizure, Standardized Field Sobriety Tests Tagged With: , , ,

Police Must Have Warrant to Search Cell Phone Data

June 30, 2014 by

POLICE CAN NOT SEARCH YOUR CELL PHONE WITHOUT A WARRANT (WITH EXCEPTIONS AS ALWAYS)

On June 25, 2014, The Supreme Court of The United States issued its opinion in the case of Riley v. California.  The court combined the cases of Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie as the two cases presented identical issues.

Both cases involved the police searching an individual’s cell phone after the individual had been lawfully placed under arrest.  The police did not just physically search the cell phones, but rather searched the data inside the cell phones in furtherance of their investigation and in order to find potentially incriminating information.  In the Riley matter, the search of the cell phone revealed that the defendant was a member of a street gang and also involved in a shooting.  Riley was convicted of the shooting and received a sentencing enhancement for being a member of a street gang based off of the information police obtained from his cell phone.  In the Wurie matter, the police accessed the call log on the defendant’s telephone and traced certain numbers with suspicious activity.  As a result, Wurie was charged and convicted of several drug and firearms offenses.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an individuals right to be secure in their person and property.  It prohibits searches without a warrant signed by a neutral and detached magistrate specifically stating the items to be found and where the items are to be found.  There are limited exceptions to the “warrant requirement.”  A warrantless search, and the information derived therefrom, is only admissible if the warrantless search falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement.

One specific exception to the warrant requirement is “search incident to lawful arrest.”  However, the search is limited to the area within the arrestee’s immediate control.  The search is justified for the purposes of officer safety and to prevent the destruction of evidence.  When asked to extend the search incident to lawful arrest to cellular phones, the Supreme Court ruled that a search of the digital information on the phone does not serve the government’s two purposes for warrantless searches.  The search of the digital information on the phone is not justified as a means to protect officer safety.  While it could possibly be argued that there is a potential for the destruction of evidence, that is balanced against the individuals privacy interest which, when it comes to the search of the data on a phone, is significantly greater than a brief physical search.  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court found that the data stored on cell phones does not present a threat to officer safety or a potential for the destruction of evidence.

While the digital data stored by a cell phone does not present any imminent threat to an arresting officer’s safety, the officer is still free to examine the physical features of the cell phone in order to ensure that it cannot be used as a weapon.  While the destruction of evidence via “remote wiping” is certainly a possibility, the Supreme Court does not rule out the ability of the police to disable a telephone in order to prevent remote wiping and secure the scene.  The court also provides for the police to search an individual’s telephone without a warrant under the exigent circumstances doctrine.

For additional information, please contact

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 E Broward Blvd #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525 or
The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 2 S Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286

Filed Under: 4th Amendment, Criminal Lawyer, Search and Seizure Tagged With: ,