Onalaska-Law.com
  • HOME Page
  • OWI/DWI/DUI Defense
  • Car Accidents and Personal Injury
  • Criminal Charges
  • ACTUAL CRIMINAL & OWI/DWI RESULTS
  • Motorcycle Accidents
  • Attorney Info
  • Contact Us
  • Onalaska-Law Blog
  • Map of Location in Onalaska
  • Court Directory & Legal Resources

NOW IN WISCONSIN TOO, "IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE" (UNLESS YOU'RE COP!).

7/15/2015

 
As we pointed out in an earlier article, one of the first principles learned by students of criminal law is "Ignorantia juris non excusat", or "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".  Otherwise, people could easily excuse their criminal actions by saying, "I thought that was legal."  The Supreme Court for the State of Wisconsin (a.k.a. "SCOW"), in State v. Houghton, has made a huge exception to that rule:  Ignorance of the law is an excuse, but only if you're a cop. 

It's official, as I expected, SCOW has adopted the dangerous precedent created by the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") in Heien v. North Carolina, wherein the Court ruled that the police--the one group that definitely should know the law--can be excused for their ignorance of the law, so long as the ignorance was "reasonable".  

The ruling in State v. Houghton, filed just yesterday, overturned SCOW's earlier cases, State v. Longcore, 2000 WI 23, 233 Wis. 2d 278, 607 N.W.2d 620 and State v. Brown, 2014 WI 69, ¶22, 355 Wis. 2d 668, 850 N.W.2d 66, which firmly held that traffic stops cannot be based upon mistakes of law.  Brown was decided less than a year ago.  As Justice Abrahamson decries in her dissent, "What happened to precedent and  stare decisis?" (Let the decision stand.) 

In Houghton, the officer pulled a car over under the mistaken belief that having no front license plate and having object (a pine tree air freshener and a small GPS unit) in the windshield of a car violates Wis. Stat. s. 346.88(3)(b).  In fact, the State conceded the officer was mistaken about the legality of no front license plate, and the referenced statute only prohibits such objects that "obstruct[] the driver's clear view through the front windshield."  The Court of Appeals ruled that these objects did not give the officer--who later found a bunch of MJ and other evidence as a result of the stop--probable cause to stop the vehicle.  However, SCOW said, using Heien, that the officer's ignorance of the law was close enough and would not make the traffic stop unconstitutional.  

"Why should we care?", you might ask.  As Justice Jackson of SCOTUS once pointed out, the police are "engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime."  Finding drugs and making busts scores them job and ego points.  We do not want to create incentives whereby being able to convincingly feign ignorance will advance your career.  

The Fourth Amendment is the only thing that prevents the police from stopping us at any time, at any place, for any reason.  We are supposed to live in a free society where we get left alone unless we are doing something wrong.  Allowing the police to stop cars on a mere pretext--such as a perfectly-legal air freshener dangling from the rear-view mirror--will definitely turn up more illegal drugs, but it also robs of our freedom.   I'd rather we be honest about it and legalize road blocks. 

SCOW had the opportunity to interpret the Wisconsin Constitution to reject the premise that the police are held to a lower standard than the citizens of Wisconsin.  Instead, it chose to go along with SCOTUS and create more authority for pretextual stops.  That sucks.

PRACTICE POINTER:  When you bring your motion for suppression, subpoena the officer's training materials so that you can demonstrate that he/she knew what the law actually is.

Comments are closed.

    Author

    Christopher W. Dyer, a Wisconsin and Minnesota Trial Lawyer, serving La Crosse and surrounding counties.

    Archives

    January 2018
    December 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013

    Categories

    All
    Blood Testing
    Breath Testing
    Car Accidents
    Domestic Charges
    Forfeiture Cases
    Going To Court
    How To Choose A Good Lawyer
    Implied Consent
    In The News
    Minnesota Dwi
    Owi 1st
    Repeat Owi
    Traffic Court
    Urine Testing.

    RSS Feed