Washington, DC - infoZine - Scripps Howard Foundation Wire - Nicholas Heien was arrested in 2009 after being stopped for a broken brake light. During the traffic stop, he consented to a search of his car that yielded a bag of cocaine. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 10 to 12 months in jail.

Why isnt the consent the end of this case? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked.

The simple answer, according to Jeffrey Fisher, who represented Heien, is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, which says evidence discovered through an illegal search must be excluded in a trial.

But Robert Montgomery, who argued on behalf of North Carolina, pointed out the states laws can easily be misinterpreted, and officers need to be able to use their discretion when they are out on as call or at a traffic stop.

Because of the conflicting laws, Montgomery argued, offices need to be able to exercise their judgment.

Still, Fisher said the search was illegal under the most relevant law, and therefore Heiens consent was irrelevant.

The constitutional problem is the admission of this evidence, Justice Antonin Scalia said. And it seems to me whether its properly admitted because the Fourth Amendment wasnt violated or whether its properly admitted because the remedy for that violation is not exclusion of the evidence; you lose either way, dont you?

The question came down to a definition what is unreasonable, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.

Well, it would be unreasonable if there was plain language of the statute that no one could reach a different interpretation about at all if it was plain, Montgomery said, or if there was a definite decision by an appellate court, it would be unreasonable for an officer to interpret it in his own way.

Roberts called the definition broad, and he said giving officers such a scope would be troubling.

Go here to see the original:

Supreme Court Starts Term with Fourth Amendment Case