The stop was based on a municipal ordinance that prohibited obstructions \u201cupon\u201d the windshield or windows. The government relied on reasonable mistake of law under Heien v. North Carolina, but the court disagrees. An air freshener was not \u201cupon\u201d and no reasonable construction of the ordinance admits of that. Moreover, defendant\u2019s car had been under surveillance for a while, and the air freshener as an excuse for the stop isn\u2019t even mentioned in the reports. \u201cAlthough both officers in this case testified about their own beliefs as well as events that strengthened those subjective beliefs, those events occurred after the stop in this case and are therefore irrelevant, as are the officers’ subjective belief that air fresheners hung from a rear view mirror violates the ordinance.\u201d United States v. Black, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52835 (W.D. Mo. February 13, 2015).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The stop was based on a municipal ordinance that prohibited obstructions \u201cupon\u201d the windshield or windows. The government relied on reasonable mistake of law under Heien v. North Carolina, but the court disagrees. An air freshener was not \u201cupon\u201d and … Continue reading