{"id":45243,"date":"2020-09-05T07:10:02","date_gmt":"2020-09-05T12:10:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=45243"},"modified":"2020-09-05T07:51:36","modified_gmt":"2020-09-05T12:51:36","slug":"il-mistaken-application-of-unambiguous-statute-not-a-heien-reasonable-mistake-of-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=45243","title":{"rendered":"IL: Mistaken application of unambiguous statute not a <em>Heien<\/em> reasonable mistake of law"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>\u201cKinsella misinterpreted an unambiguous statute, thereby committing an unreasonable mistake of law. See Gaytan, 2015 IL 116223, \u00b6 45; see also United States v. Stanbridge, 813 F.3d 1032, 1037-38 (7th Cir. 2016) (\u2018[The officer] simply was wrong about what the provision required, yet \u201can officer can gain no Fourth Amendment advantage through a sloppy study of the law he is duty-bound to enforce.\u201d\u2019 (quoting Heien, 574 U.S. at 67)). Due to Kinsella&#8217;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.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/www.illinoiscourts.gov\/Opinions\/AppellateCourt\/2020\/3rdDistrict\/3170764.pdf\">People v. Kaczkowski<\/a>, 2020 IL App (3d) 170764, 2020 Ill. App. LEXIS 589 (Sept. 4, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Defendant didn\u2019t show ineffective assistance of counsel from defense counsel\u2019s not moving to suppress text messages on his cell phone where the proof at trial was that the text messages came from the victim\u2019s phone. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tsc.state.tn.us\/sites\/default\/files\/bumpus_patrick_opn_0.pdf\">Bumpus v. State<\/a>, 2020 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 599 (Sept. 4, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cKinsella misinterpreted an unambiguous statute, thereby committing an unreasonable mistake of law. See Gaytan, 2015 IL 116223, \u00b6 45; see also United States v. Stanbridge, 813 F.3d 1032, 1037-38 (7th Cir. 2016) (\u2018[The officer] simply was wrong about what the &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=45243\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,63],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45243","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ineffective-assistance","category-reasonableness"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45243","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=45243"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45243\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":45244,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45243\/revisions\/45244"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=45243"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=45243"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=45243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}