Z ${site.data.firmName}Est. 2001
Have a case? Call us:
  • Hundreds of jury trials
  • Multi-millions in verdicts and settlements
  • Major not guilty verdicts
  • High stakes litigation

U.S. Supreme Court Archives

Supreme Court Extends Second Amendment To Include Stun Guns

Here is a Washington Tribune article on an interesting case in which the Supreme Court of the United States has expanded the Second Amendment to include stun guns.  Here, the stun gun was used in Massachusetts by a woman to protect herself from a dangerous and abusive boyfriend.  In a Concurrence, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:

Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. ___ (2014)

Justia Opinion Summary
Following a suspicious vehicle, Sergeant Darisse noticed that only one of the brake lights was working and pulled the driver over. While issuing a warning ticket for the broken light, Darisse became suspicious of the actions of the occupants and their answers to his questions. Heien, the car's owner, gave Darisse consent to search the vehicle. Darisse found cocaine. Heien was arrested and charged with attempted trafficking. The trial court denied Heien's motion to suppress, concluding that the faulty light gave Darisse reasonable suspicion for the stop. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that N. C. Gen. Stat. 20-129(g), requires only a single lamp, which Heien's vehicle had, so that the justification for the stop was objectively unreasonable. Reversing, the state Supreme Court held that Darisse's mistake was reasonable. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed. The Fourth Amendment requires government officials to act reasonably, not perfectly. Reasonable suspicion arises from an understanding of both the facts and the law. Whether an officer is reasonably mistaken about the one or the other, the result is the same. Because the Fourth Amendment tolerates only objectively reasonable mistakes, an officer gains no advantage by "Ignorance of the law." The vehicle code's wording made it objectively reasonable to think that a faulty brake light constituted a violation.

The Fourth Amendment Lives Another Day: A Win for Digital Privacy in the U.S. Supreme Court

Washington, DC (June 25, 2014) - In a single unanimous ruling today, the U.S. Supreme Court held in both Riley v. California (13-132) and United States v. Wurie (13-212) that even in the context of an arrest, absent exigent circumstances, a warrant is required for police to search the contents of electronic devices like a cellphone or smartphone.