Heien V. North Carolina Case Study

conclusion. The case Heien v. North Carolina came about on April 29, 2010 when an officer started “following a suspicious vehicle, Sergeant Matt Darisse noticed that only one of the vehicle's brake lights was working and pulled the driver over. While issuing a warning ticket for the broken brake light, Darisse became suspicious of the actions of the two occupants and their answers to his questions. Petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien, the car's owner, gave Darisse consent to search the vehicle. Darisse found cocaine, and Heien was arrested and charged with attempted trafficking.” After denial of his motion to suppress, defendant entered a guilty plea in the North Carolina Superior Court… the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed…The North
North Carolina and Valdez situations was that the specific traffic violations, because Heien vehicle was stopped, because of a broken tail light. In contrast, Valdez was stop, because of an air freshener hanging from the inside rear view mirror. The intent of the traffic stop was different, in Heien’s case the officer conducted the situation in professional manner with no harmful intent. Yet, in Valdez case the officer had personal history with the occupants and he had a personal vendetta against Camilo Valdez identical brother Juan Valdez so the traffic stop was based on personal intent. In Heien v. North Carolina Heien was the owner of the vehicle, yet in Camilo Valdez case he was not the owner of the vehicle. Heien agreed to have his car search when the officer ask him permission. In contrast, Juan Valdez did not consent to have the vehicle searched by Michael Holden. In Heien case there was no appellate court cases that address the legality of this type of traffic violation. Yet, in Valdez situation there was an appellate court case that did set precedent and address that it’s not a traffic violation to have an air freshener hanging on the rearview mirror. These differences may seem minuscule but it does change the whole nature of the