IL: Mistaken application of unambiguous statute not a Heien reasonable mistake of law

“Kinsella misinterpreted an unambiguous statute, thereby committing an unreasonable mistake of law. See Gaytan, 2015 IL 116223, ¶ 45; see also United States v. Stanbridge, 813 F.3d 1032, 1037-38 (7th Cir. 2016) (‘[The officer] simply was wrong about what the provision required, yet “an officer can gain no Fourth Amendment advantage through a sloppy study of the law he is duty-bound to enforce.”’ (quoting Heien, 574 U.S. at 67)). Due to Kinsella’s unreasonable mistake of law, the traffic stop at issue violated the fourth amendment, as it was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The evidence seized pursuant to the stop should be suppressed.” People v. Kaczkowski, 2020 IL App (3d) 170764, 2020 Ill. App. LEXIS 589 (Sept. 4, 2020).

Defendant didn’t show ineffective assistance of counsel from defense counsel’s not moving to suppress text messages on his cell phone where the proof at trial was that the text messages came from the victim’s phone. Bumpus v. State, 2020 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 599 (Sept. 4, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.