Iowa Appeals Court Affirms State Cops Can’t Use Their Ignorance Of The Law To Justify Traffic Stops

from the exception-to-the-national-rule-tho dept

In December 2014, the US Supreme Court extended its blessing of pretextual stops to cover imaginary moving violations. Ignorance of the law is the best excuse, cops were told in the Court’s Heien decision. All cops needed to do was make a “reasonable” error when interpreting the laws they enforce and that mistake could be converted into reasonable suspicion supporting the stop.

That precedent governs police behavior almost everywhere in the nation. Almost everywhere. Here’s one notable exception: the state of Iowa. In this state, ignorance of the law cannot justify traffic stops. Cops need to witness actual moving violations to start depriving someone of their liberty, a point recently reiterated by the state appeals court. (h/t FourthAmendment.com)

The decision [PDF] is short — only six pages — but it’s long enough to say it louder for the Iowa cops in the back.

The Cedar Rapids cops who pulled over Rayshaun Friend claimed they were compelled to initiate the stop because they thought Friend’s temporary tag had a fraudulent expiration date. That stop led to a search, which led to the discovery of marijuana in Friend’s pocket. Friend was also driving with a suspended license.

Friend moved to suppress the evidence, alleging the officers had no reasonable suspicion any criminal act had taken place. As for the allegedly fraudulent date, Friend pointed to extensions granted to temporary tags due to government service interruptions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The cops argued otherwise. Sort of. They admitted they were wrong about the temporary tag but right about a different violation — one not originally cited in their paperwork.

In its resistance to the motion, the State conceded the officers were “mistaken[]” in their belief that the “temporary tag . . . was fraudulent.” Nonetheless, the State asserted the officers “had probable cause to initiate a traffic stop” based on Friend’s failure “to yield the right of way” to an emergency vehicle.

But the “failure to yield” was directly related to the officers’ attempt to pull Friend over for the supposedly illegal temporary tag. That much was clear from the dash cam video. The lower court, however, said this attempt to salvage a bad stop was fine.

It is clear that the vehicle did not immediately pull to the side of the road as required by Iowa Code Section 321.324(2) [(2021)1] . . . . At the time the officers activated their emergency lights, they were directly behind [Friend’s] vehicle. From the evidence presented, there appears to be no obstructions that would prevent [Friend] from immediately pulling to the side of the road as required by law. [Friend’s] failure to yield to the police car for two and a half blocks does create an intervening and independent justification for a vehicle stop.

If Friend had immediately pulled over, there would have been no justification for the stop. That’s the conclusion reached by both levels of the court. The state appeals court, however, takes the time to drive the point home that officers’ ignorance of the law cannot justify stops, even with the US Supreme Court’s ruling in place.

As noted, the State conceded that the stop could not be supported by the officers’ mistaken belief concerning the validity of the temporary tag. The State now suggests a reasonable mistake of law might provide reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. The State relies on Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 61 (2014), in which the United States Supreme Court stated, “[t]here is no reason, under the text of the Fourth Amendment or our precedents, why [reasonable suspicion] should be acceptable when reached by way of a reasonable mistake of fact, but not when reached by way of a similarly reasonable mistake of law.”

All well and good, but Heien doesn’t apply in Iowa under the state’s constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States sets the baseline. States are free to provide greater protections for residents under their own constitutions. That’s what Iowa has done, and the higher-than-Heien standard still applies.

The language does indeed support the State’s suggestion. But Iowa has gone in a different direction. As Friend points out, the supreme court held “a mistake of law is not sufficient to justify a stop.” State v. Tyler, (Iowa 2013); see also State v. Louwrens, 792 N.W.2d 649, 654 (Iowa 2010) […] The court reaffirmed
that position following Heien. See State v. Scheffert, 910 N.W.2d 577, 585 n.2 (Iowa 2018); see also State v. Coleman, 890 N.W.2d 284, 298 n.2 (Iowa 2017); Baldwin v. Estherville, 333 F. Supp. 3d 817, 837 (N.D. Iowa 2018) (discussing difference between federal and state constitution on mistake of law). The court stated:

After our decision in Tyler, the United States Supreme Court decided that a reasonable mistake of law could support reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. Heien[, 574 U.S. at 61]. Thus, the mistake-of-law doctrine is broader under the United States Constitution than it is under the Iowa Constitution.

. . . . Subsequent to Heien, we reaffirmed Tyler. See State v. Coleman, 890 N.W.2d 284, 298 n.2 (Iowa 2017) (“[T]he ruling in Tyler under the Iowa Constitution is unaffected by Heien.”).

Ring up another mistake of law for the Cedar Rapids cops. And add one to the government’s tab for citing precedent that does not apply under the state constitution.

Unfortunately for Friend, his failure to immediately pull over after the officers fired up their lights (but not their siren) provides its own, lawful basis for a stop. That these lights would never have been activated without the cops being wrong about the temporary tag law is, sadly, considered to be incidental to the discussion. The court says there’s no need to consider the “new crime exception” to reasonable suspicion requirements because it’s kind of like being arrested for resisting an unlawful arrest. Even if the first arrest attempt was wrong, officers can convert it into a second arrest for the crime provoked by their initial, unlawful arrest.

So, not a win by any means. But it does at least force cops in Iowa to actually know the laws they’re enforcing and it serves as a handy reminder that just because the US Supreme Court sets a low bar for law enforcement doesn’t mean every other state in the nation needs to sink to its level.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Iowa Appeals Court Affirms State Cops Can’t Use Their Ignorance Of The Law To Justify Traffic Stops”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
8 Comments
Christenson says:

Fruit of the poisonous tree...

If the decision to pull someone over is bogus, why is what happens next even admissible in court???

And second, without more, 2-1/2 blocks is not an unreasonable delay to find a safe place to get completely off the road for both you and the cop pulling you over, or at least onto a quiet side street. in my (white male privileged) experience, turn on your flashers, slow way down, and find that safe spot.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: may not apply

in my (white male privileged) experience

There is nothing indicating that Rayshawn Friend was not visibly guilty of DWB. Generally that is sufficient to justify a stop, particularly if you can add on something like ``resisting” or “failing to pull over immediately” as an added post hoc justification.

Anonymous Coward says:

That is why I always dial up the security on my phone to where any LEO who decides to seize it will never get at the contents.

The Android I have now will prevent data from ever being extracted becuause you now have to specifically allow data transfer every time you connect to a computer. This is better than the old “booby trap” mode which would wipe the phone after too many password attempts.

This means they cannot even connect up without having the password.

So the phone will be just a paperweight for that cop’s desk, as he will never be able to get at the contents of the phone.

The problem now with driving to Canada is that no matter how much much money you have in the bank or on credit cards, you can be denied entry into Canada if you are carryying enough cash on your person, I have heard of that happening. So I am damned if I do damned if I don’t when driving to Canada’s Wonderland amusement park.

This way if my phone is ever seized in addition to cash I am carrying if I am ever pulled over in Michigan, they will never get at the contents of the phone.

They cannot force me to give up my password, once they get the phone back to the station and try to get at the contents.

Locking police your phone like that does not break any laws in any of the 50 US states, 14 Canadian provinces, 31 Mexican states of any federal laws in Canada, Mexico, or the United States.

anonymous says:

Unfortunately for Friend, his failure to immediately pull over after the officers fired up their lights (but not their siren) provides its own, lawful basis for a stop. That these lights would never have been activated without the cops being wrong about the temporary tag law is, sadly, considered to be incidental to the discussion.

Looks like you are catching up with Russia, where “disobedience to a lawful order of a police officer” de facto became “disobedience to an order of a police officer”.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...