PETER F. IOCONA - ATTORNEY AT LAW
ORANGE COUNTY'S "BEST" DUI LAWYERS

CALL NOW: 949-305-0343 - FREE CONSULTATION - PAYMENT PLANS

THE "MISTAKE OF LAW" EXCEPTION


CONTACT US TODAY


ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES


 
CLIENT REVIEWS &
PEER-REVIEW RATINGS



FOLLOW OUR DUI BLOGS


GOOGLE BLOGGER

OC DUI Lawyer Blog


GOOGLE BUSINESS PAGES


PETER F. IOCONA
ATTORNEY AT LAW

22982 LA CADENA DR #239
LAGUNA HILLS, CA. 92653




THE SOCAL LAW NETWORK

23152 VERDUGO DR #201
LAGUNA HILLS, CA. 92653

 



SHARE AND FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:

  


  



ALAN CASTILLO AND PETER F.  IOCONA BOTH SELECTED AS ONE OF ORANGE COUNTY'S TOP-RATED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

Top-Rated OC DUI Attorney


PETER F. IOCONA: RATED BY "SUPER LAWYERS" 2015-2016


Super Lawyer Rated - Peter F. Iocona


PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE "TOP 100 TRIAL LAWYERS" BY THE NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION


Top 100 Trial Lawyers - Peter F. Iocona



PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE TOP CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS





PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP ONE PERCENT ATTORNEYS BY N.A.D.C. 


Peter F. Iocona - Top One Percent Rated Attorney


PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ADVOCACY OF DUI DEFENSE


Nationally Ranked Superior DUI Attorney


FEATURED IN THE "TOP 100" MAGAZINE AS ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP 100 LAW FIRMS



 "MEMBER" OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI LAWYERS ASSOCIATION


DUI Defense Lawyer - California DUI Lawyers Association


"MEMBER" OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR DUI DEFENSE


DUI Lawyer - National College for DUI Defense


"MEMBER" OF THE DUI DEFENSE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (DUIDLA)


DUI Defense Lawyer - DUIDLA Member

  
ALAN CASTILLO SELECTED AS 
ONE OF THE "TOP 100 TRIAL LAWYERS" BY THE NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION



Top 100 Trial Lawyers - Alan Castillo


ALAN CASTILLO SELECTED AS 
ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP ONE PERCENT ATTORNEYS BY N.A.D.C. 


Alan Castillo - Top One Percent Rated Attorney



FORMER CONTRIBUTING EDITORS TO "CALIFORNIA DRUNK DRIVING LAW "
(2003-2016)


California Drunk Driving Law - Contributing Editors (2003-2016)



LAWYER LEGION COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AWARD 


Lawyer Legion - Top Attorney



"LEAD COUNSEL" RATED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS


Lead Counsel Rated Orange County DUI Attorneys



 LAWYER.COM VERIFIED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS





 BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU RATED "A+"


BBB Top Rating - Top-Rated DUI Attorneys



EVERY ATTORNEY IS RATED "10/10" OR "SUPERB" BY AVVO ATTORNEY RATING SERVICE


Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated Orange County DUI Lawyer

PETER F. IOCONA RATED "SUPERB" "10/10" BY AVVO



Peter F. Iocona - Best Orange County DUI Lawyer

PETER F. IOCONA RECEIVED "CLIENT'S CHOICE AWARD" 
FROM AVVO RATING SERVICE


Peter F. Iocona - Top Orange County DUI Attorney

 PETER F. IOCONA AWARDED 
"TOP CONTRIBUTOR" BY AVVO





ALAN CASTILLO RATED "SUPERB" BY AVVO





 
ALAN CASTILLO RECEIVED "CLIENTS' CHOICE AWARD" 
FROM AVVO RATING SERVICE





 MARLO CORDERO RATED
"SUPERB" BY AVVO


CALL NOW FOR A FREE DUI CONSULTATION:


Click to call

ON-CALL 24 HOURS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK

SHARE AND FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:


  


  


THE "MISTAKE OF LAW" EXCEPTION

RATED BY SUPER LAWYERS, ORANGE COUNTY'S TOP-RATED DUI DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

Peter F. Iocona - Top 100 Trial LawyersPeter F. Iocona - Super Lawyers Rated Orange County DUI Lawyer  Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated DUI Criminal Defense Attorney
 Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated Orange County DUI Defense Attorney

THE "MISTAKE OF LAW" EXCEPTION

In U.S. v. Twilley (9th Cir 2000) 222 F3d 1092, the Court held that a cop’s good faith mistake of law about the number of license plates issued by the state of Michigan did not make the vehicle detention legal. The opinion held that a mistake of law, even if made in good faith, can never justify a detention. The opinion stated:

But in this circuit, a belief based on a mistaken understanding of the law cannot constitute the reasonable suspicion required for a constitutional traffic stop. “Reasonable suspicion is formed by specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is engaged in criminal activity.” Lopez-Soto, 205 F.3d at 1105. In Lopez-Soto, a police officer stopped the defendant’s car because he could not see a registration sticker on the rear of the vehicle. Although the officer believed that such a visible registration sticker was required by law—and had been so instructed at the police academy—the law actually required the sticker to be affixed to the windshield. The officer, like Officer Weeks in this case, stopped the car “because he held a mistaken view of the law.” Id. at 1105. A suspicion based on such a mistaken view of the law cannot be the reasonable suspicion required for the Fourth Amendment, because “the legal justification [for a traffic stop] must be objectively grounded.” Id. (quotations omitted). In other words, if an officer makes a traffic stop based on a mistake of law, the stop violates the Fourth Amendment.

While the officer need not perfectly understand the law when he stops the vehicle, his observation must give him an objective basis to believe that the vehicle violates the law. We recently upheld the stop of a vehicle when the officer correctly believed the car’s window tinting violated the law, although the officer believed all tinting was illegal and the law actually prohibited only darker tinting. See Wallace, 213 F.3d at 1120 (the officer’s “observations correctly caused him to believe that Wallace’s window tinting was illegal; he was just wrong about exactly why”). This case is “in sharp contrast” to one “in which the [driver’s] conduct does not in any way, shape or form constitute a crime.”

Id. Footnote 1 of the opinion distinguishes the law on a cop’s mistake of fact, which can justify a detention if made in good faith.

Similarly, the opinion in U.S. v. Lopez-Soto (9th Cir 2000) 205 F3d 1101, reaches the conclusion that a good faith mistake in the law regarding display of a vehicle registration sticker does not justify a vehicle stop. The opinion makes it clear that no mistake in law, whether made in good faith or not, can justify any detention, saying:

We have no doubt that Officer Hill held his mistaken view of the law in good faith, but there is no good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for police who do not act in accordance with governing law. See U.S. v. Gantt, 194 F.3d 987, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). To create an exception here would defeat the purpose of the exclusionary rule, for it would remove the incentive for police to make certain that they properly understand the law that they are entrusted to enforce and obey.

The California cases generally support the proposition that a mistake of law will not validate a stop. People v. Hernandez (2003) 110 Cal App.4th Supp. 1—officer’s mistaken belief that a neon purple light ringing a front license plate frame was illegal, did not make the stop legal due to the officer’s mistake of law. See also People v. White (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 636—officer erroneously believed that a car from Arizona was required to have both a front and rear license plate as is required in California. The court wrote at pages 643-44: “Though we assume the officer acted in good faith, there is not good faith exception to the exclusionary rule for police who enforce a legal standard that does not exist. Creating a good faith exception here would run counter to the exclusionary rule’s goal by removing an incentive for the police to know the law we entrust them to enforce.” People v. Ramirez (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 849 (Officer’s detention of an individual crossing a street outside of a sidewalk was a mistake of law as the officer could not establish that the defendant failed to yield the right of way to a vehicle constituting an immediate hazard. The Court held that detention was illegal because there was no probable cause to believe that a violation occurred.). For a contrary holding probably limited to the rare facts in the case see People v. Glick (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 796. The conflict between White and Glick was addressed in People v. Reyes (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 856, which found Twilley and White to be better reasoned and more in line with established mistake of law cases in California. The court noted: “[T]o hold otherwise would provide a strong incentive to police to remain ignorant.” Id. See Bryan v. United States (1998) 524 U.S. 184, 196 (“We note the fundamental unfairness of holding citizens to the traditional rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse while allowing those entrusted to enforce the law to be ignorant of it.”).

DIRECTIONS TO PETER F. IOCONA - ATTORNEY AT LAW IN LAGUNA HILLS















Website Builder