If you think that there is no hope once you’ve been arrested on a drunk driving charge, think again! The Arizona Court of Appeals has vacated the DUI conviction of a driver, saying that the Cochise County sheriff’s deputies involved in the case had no legal basis to pull the man over in the first place.
The defendant in the case was parked at a convenience store, and deputies say they smelled the odor of marijuana burning. So they followed the driver and his passenger when they drove away. The keen-eyed deputies were clearly looking for any excuse to stop the car. They say they noted that the white lamp used to light up the rear license plate of the vehicle – a light that is, by the way, required under Arizona law – could be seen from the rear of the vehicle. They then decided, based apparently on training they received from the Sheriff’s Department, that the visible white lamp violated the law, which says rear lights of vehicles must be either red, yellow or amber. Armed with this information, they attempted to justify what would otherwise have been an illegal stop of the defendant’s car. The driver was eventually charged with driving under the influence.
Unreasonable Mistakes by the Police
After the case was filed, the trial judge initially threw out the charge because the stop was illegal. He apparently found, as has everyone else who has looked at the issue, that the deputies’ interpretation of the license plate lamp law was incorrect. He reconsidered, however, after reviewing a 2014 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heien v. North Carolina. That decision held that a reasonable mistake of law should not invalidate a stop where the mistake gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. The case moved forward at the trial level, although the proceedings there included several attempts by the prosecution to justify the search on other grounds. Eventually, the trial judge agreed with the state that the actions of the deputies, while based upon an incorrect interpretation of the traffic laws, justified the stop under Heien.
The defendant appealed, and the conviction was vacated. The basis for the reversal was not a new interpretation of the law. Rather, a panel of the Court of Appeals found unanimously that the deputies’ interpretation of the law was simply not reasonable, and would lead to an “absurd result.” The escape hatch provided to the prosecution by Heien was not available.
The decisions over the past several years continue to erode our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is gratifying to see that there may be at least something left of this constitutional guarantee.
Law Offices of David A. Black
40 North Central Avenue #1850
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(480) 280-8028