Comments on: Is a Burned Out Brake Light a Basis for a Stop?

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:06:39 +0000

Thank you ANOTHER PD for your liberal response. I am glad that you agree with letting drug traffickers go based on out dated language that you very well know has been enforced for years. This is not an argument over constitutional rights or a law that discriminates, this is a liberal loop hole that people like you agree with manipulating in an effort to excuse the illegal activities of others. It is ridiculous to expect any Officer to reasonable believe that it is legal for a vehicle to operate on the highway with only one operable brake light, when that same vehicle will not pass NC State Inspection. If that same vehicle fails inspection because of the inoperable brake light, then it is operating on the roadway illegally and can be charged for failing to pass state inspection.

The argument is not as much over safety as it is the requirement that all OEM lights must function properly. It is a logical conclusion considering once a year I have to prove to a state inspector that all of my lights do in fact operate. Hopefully the wording will be updated and we can get back to work until some bleeding heart finds another loop hole to justify the illegal activities of his/her client. In the mean time, ANOTHER PD, can enjoy runnning one brake light oh and watch out for that vehicle in front of you that just slammed on it’s brakes and you never noticed because all they had was ONE brake light, let me say it again, ONE brake light…

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:15:58 +0000

It doesn’t seem right that we should have to adhere to the letter of the law in order to catch those who are breaking the law, but I guess we ought to.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:48:44 +0000

I’ve been a passenger in two cars that have been pulled over for having a break light out. It’s a real pain but I can understand that it is a safety issue. And as Mike pointed out, I’d hate to see guilty parties being let off for any criminal activity that was discovered if these stops are classified as officers’ mistakes.

By: Another PD

Another PD — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:54:03 +0000

It’s kind of ridiculous that this well-reasoned, perfectly logical and lawful COA opinion was stayed. In order for an officer to pull over a motorist for violating a statute, they have to see an actual violation of a statute. The Heien court painstakingly went through the brake light statute. The statute also happens to be very clearly written. It only requires “a” light. One light. A single light. I repeat, ONE LIGHT. It does require that the light be red and visible for a certain number of feet, but in the end, it all comes back to the one light requirement.

Now it seems some of the commenters above have raise the safety issue as an independent reason to pull over a vehicle with one (of two or three) brake light out. That just doesn’t fly. The legislature has spoken on the issue of safety, and they said you need ONE LIGHT. Do they need to go back and rewrite the statute? Maybe. That’s their call. But in the meantime, vehicles with one brake light are in compliance with the law and all the hand wringing over suppressed kilos of cocaine doesn’t make it otherwise.

By: Shea Denning

Shea Denning — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:55:31 +0000

The State’s motion for a temporary stay was allowed by the NC Supreme Court on September 6, 2011.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:08:35 +0000

Thanks for clarifying this. While it may not be lawful it customarily happens and people are fined under G.S. 20-129(d) frequently. m44b

By: me

me — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 11:41:33 +0000

No surprise to me as I had read about this elsewhere and then read the opinion weeks ago.
My guess is that the School of Government Prosecution wanted to highlight this issue so that the legislature could hurry up and pass legislation to close this potential, but very small, give to a defendant.

By: Mike Conerly

Mike Conerly — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:12:14 +0000

Just some observations;

As already mentioned, the state requires the brake lights to be in operating order when a citizen submits to mandatory yearly vehicle inspections. Does this mean only one has to be in working order for the inspection? According to the state, no. I’m sure the state would argue this is a safety issue. Okay, so when someone doesn’t comply with this issue, how is it enforced?

Do federal laws requiring three brake lights matter? Do they have to work? Doesn’t federal law usually trump state law?

Also, whatever happen to attorneys (both prosecution and defense) being “officers of the court” and “seekers of the truth”, instead of “let me get my drug trafficking client off regardless of his guilt!” Sorry, I had to get on my soapbox a little.

By: julian wray

julian wray — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:40:41 +0000

case stayed

By: Dennis Young, Sr.

Dennis Young, Sr. — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 19:51:12 +0000

Yes. It’s a safety hazard for others, in addition to the operator of the vehicle.