Mistake of law in stop: suppressed generally, but not in Third Circuit

Two cases on mistake of law from Illinois and W.D. Pa. showing a split in the authorities making the issue cert worthy:

In Illinois, an officer stopped the defendant because a strand of beads was hanging off the rearview mirror, and he determined that it obstructed the driver’s view in violation of Illinois law. The law required it materially obstruct the view, which this could not, so the stop was invalid. People v. Cole, 369 Ill. App. 3d 960, 874 N.E.2d 81, 314 Ill.
Dec. 171 (4th Dist. 2007).

Recognizing a circuit split, the W.D. Pa. holds that “the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit distinguished the decisions of the ‘sister circuits’ which held that ‘mistakes of law–even reasonable ones–can render a traffic stop “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment,’ and held that mistakes of law are not per se unreasonable.” Officer’s reasonable mistake as to taillight law did not make stop unreasonable. United States v. Burks, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2147 (W.D. Pa. January 11, 2007).*

False arrest and search claim is barred by Heck, absent successful appeal or post-conviction. Karboau v. Lawrence, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2060 (D. Ore. January 8, 2007).*

Marijuana eradication helicopter flight passed over defendant’s property enroute to another piece of land and they saw marijuana growing on defendant’s land. Circling back to look, the helicopter descended to 100-200′. This was not an illegal search. The defendant’s claim that the warrant was backdated was without any evidentiary support. Differ v. State, 2007 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 22 (January 12, 2007).

Multiple controlled buys showed timely nexus to defendant’s premises. Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 56, 859 N.E.2d 893 (January 12, 2007):

“The information in the affidavit must be adequate to establish a timely nexus between the defendant and the location to be searched and to permit the determination that the particular items of criminal activity sought reasonably could be expected to be found there.” Commonwealth v. Eller, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 564, 565, 849 N.E.2d 859 (2006). “The connection between the items to be seized and the place to be searched does not have to be based on direct observations; it may be found by looking at the type of crime, nature of the items, the suspect’s opportunity to conceal items, and inferences as to where the items are likely to be hidden.” Commonwealth v. Olivares, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 596, 600, 571 N.E.2d 416 (1991).