A
sheriff’s deputy conducted a traffic stop after the defendant drove 43 mph
through what the deputy believed to be a 25-mph speed zone. During the stop, the deputy discovered
evidence that led to the defendant’s arrest for operating while intoxicated and
carrying a concealed pistol while under the influence of alcohol. The defendant filed a pretrial motion
to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop and to
dismiss the case, arguing that because
the speed limit was actually 55 mph, there was no lawful basis for the traffic
stop. The district court found the
controlling speed limit to be 55 mph and granted the defendant’s motion to
suppress. The circuit court affirmed the
district court’s speed-limit finding, but reversed its suppression ruling after
concluding that the deputy had made a reasonable mistake of law regarding the
applicable speed limit. After
unsuccessfully seeking leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal to the Court of
Appeals, the defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to the two charged
misdemeanors that preserved his ability to pursue the suppression issue on
appeal. The circuit court denied the defendant’s
subsequent application for leave to appeal.
In its initial review of the case, the Court of Appeals denied leave to
appeal for lack of merit, but the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court
of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. On remand, the Court of Appeals issued an
unpublished opinion holding that the traffic stop was unlawful because the
deputy’s mistaken belief that the speed limit was 25 mph lacked objective
reasonableness. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address
whether the arresting deputy made an objectively reasonable mistake of
law regarding the applicable speed limit that justified the traffic stop of the
defendant’s vehicle. See Heien v North Carolina, 574 US 54 (2014).