October Term 2014 · Docket 13-604
Does a reasonable mistake of law justify a traffic stop?
North Carolina argues that a police officer’s reasonable error about the law justifies a stop. The driver argues that such mistakes violate the Fourth Amendment.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Jeffrey Fisher argued that officers should know the law. He stated that citizens rely on this presumption.
North Carolina’s advocate argued that the Fourth Amendment allows reasonable errors. He emphasized that police do not need to be perfect.
questions_and_answers
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 37-25 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 37-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-23
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether a police officer’s reasonable mistake of law can justify a traffic stop. North Carolina claims the officer acted reasonably. The driver claims the stop was unlawful.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 37-25 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 37-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 37-19
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 6, 2014.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 21-23
What each side wants
North Carolina wants the Court to uphold the traffic stop. It argues the officer’s reasonable mistake of law justifies the seizure.
The driver wants the Court to suppress evidence from the stop. It argues a reasonable mistake of law does not justify a seizure.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 37-25 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 37-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 37-19
What each side says
North Carolina argues that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to be perfect. It claims reasonable mistakes of law should be tolerated.
The driver argues that officers must know the law. It claims a reasonable mistake of law does not provide probable cause for a stop.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 37-25 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 37-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 37-19
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the Fourth Amendment protects only against unreasonable searches. He questioned the basis for the stop.
Justice Alito asked if an officer could request a search after issuing a warning. He explored the scope of the interaction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-23
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of police authority. It determines whether officers can rely on reasonable legal errors. The outcome shapes future traffic stops nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 37-25 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 37-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 37-19
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-23
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 37-25 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 37-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 37-25 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 37-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 37-19
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.