State v. Richard E. Houghton, Jr.
364 Wis. 2d 234, 868 N.W.2d 143, 2015 WI 79 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A traffic stop is justified under the Fourth Amendment when an officer has reasonable suspicion that a traffic law has been violated. This reasonable suspicion can be based on an officer's objectively reasonable, but mistaken, interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
Facts:
- Richard E. Houghton, Jr., a Michigan resident, was driving a blue Ford Taurus with a Michigan license plate on a highway in East Troy, Wisconsin.
- The vehicle did not have a front license plate.
- An air freshener was suspended from the rearview mirror, and a GPS unit was attached to the front windshield.
- Village of East Troy Police Officer Jeff Price observed the vehicle and initiated a traffic stop.
- Upon approaching the vehicle after the stop, Officer Price detected the odor of marijuana.
- A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed approximately 240 grams of marijuana and related paraphernalia.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Richard E. Houghton, Jr. in the Walworth County Circuit Court (the trial court) with one count of possession with intent to deliver THC.
- Houghton filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the traffic stop was unlawful because no traffic violation had occurred.
- The circuit court denied the motion to suppress, principally on the grounds that the missing front license plate provided reasonable suspicion.
- Following the denial, Houghton pled guilty but appealed the conviction, challenging the circuit court's denial of his suppression motion.
- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) reversed the judgment of conviction, concluding there was no probable cause for the stop.
- The State petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court (the state's highest court) for review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's traffic stop based on an objectively reasonable, but mistaken, interpretation of a statute violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Prosser, J.
No. A traffic stop based on an officer's objectively reasonable mistake of law does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court first holds that reasonable suspicion that a traffic law has been or is being violated is the single standard sufficient to justify all traffic stops, rejecting a dual standard requiring probable cause for some stops. The court then adopts the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Heien v. North Carolina, which established that an officer's objectively reasonable mistake of law can form the basis for reasonable suspicion. In so doing, the court overrules its own precedent in State v. Brown and State v. Longcore, choosing to interpret the Wisconsin Constitution's search and seizure provision coextensively with the Fourth Amendment. Applying this new rule, the court finds that while Wis. Stat. § 346.88 does not create an absolute ban on all objects in a windshield, the statute is sufficiently ambiguous that Officer Price's interpretation to the contrary was objectively reasonable. Therefore, the officer had the necessary reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop, rendering it constitutionally valid.
Dissenting - Abrahamson, J.
Yes. A traffic stop premised on a law enforcement officer's mistake of law is unreasonable and thus unlawful under Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The majority errs by overturning recent and established state precedent (State v. Brown and State v. Longcore) merely to remain in 'lockstep' with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in Heien v. North Carolina. The Wisconsin Constitution is a separate document that can and should provide greater protections for its citizens. Adhering to precedent, the dissent argues that allowing stops based on mistakes of law removes the incentive for police to properly understand the law they enforce, erodes civil liberties, and gives officers too much discretion in the context of traffic stops, which are already 'invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters.'
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally changes Wisconsin's search and seizure law by aligning it with the federal standard announced in Heien v. North Carolina. By explicitly overruling State v. Brown and State v. Longcore, the court abandons the long-held state principle that a mistake of law could never justify a traffic stop. The ruling provides law enforcement greater leeway, as a stop can now be deemed constitutional even if the officer misunderstood the law, provided the mistake was 'objectively reasonable.' This will likely make it more difficult for defendants to succeed on motions to suppress evidence obtained from stops based on an officer's interpretation of an ambiguous or previously unconstrued statute.
