blank

Is a Burned Out Brake Light a Basis for a Stop?

We’ll start with a pop quiz:

A police officer sees that the right brake light of a vehicle fails to illuminate when the driver applies brakes while driving down a street in North Carolina. The left brake light works. Does the officer’s observation of the malfunctioning right brake light provide reasonable suspicion that a violation of the state’s traffic laws has occurred, thus justifying a stop of the vehicle?

  1. Yes.  A stop of the vehicle based on this observation is constitutional.
  2. No.  A stop of the vehicle based on this observation is unconstitutional.

So as not to spoil the surprise, the answer appears after a page break.  First, some background.

G.S. 20-129(g) sets forth the requirements for brake lights—termed “stop lamps” under the statute—on vehicles operated on North Carolina roads. Any motor vehicle, motorcycle, or motor-driven cycle manufactured after December 31, 1955 that is operated on street or highway in North Carolina must be “equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle.” The stop lamp must display a red or amber light visible from at least 100 feet to the rear in normal sunlight.  It may be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps.

Other provisions of G.S. 20-129 set forth the requirements for lighted “rear lamps” for vehicles. G.S. 20-129(d) requires that every motor vehicle, and every trailer or semitrailer attached to a motor vehicle and every vehicle drawn at the end of a combination of vehicles must “have all originally equipped rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order, which lamps shall exhibit a red light plainly visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of 500 feet to the rear of such vehicle.”

So, every motor vehicle must have one working brake light pursuant to G.S. 20-129(g). And all of a vehicle’s “rear lamps” must be in good working order pursuant to G.S. 20-129(d). Does this mean that if a vehicle is equipped with more than one brake light, all of them must work? Find out after the jump.

Read more

blank

Per se impairment, reasonable doubt, margins of error, and all that lies between

G.S. 20-138.1(a)(2) prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway, street or public vehicular area after having consumed sufficient alcohol that the person has, at any relevant time after the driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. S.L. 2006-253 amended this subsection to provide, effective for offenses committed on or after December 1, … Read more

blank

The Link Between License Revocations and Failures to Appear

In 1985, the General Assembly reclassified certain minor traffic violations as a new type of non-criminal violation, termed an infraction. S.L. 1985-764. Though the legislation provided that infractions were to be processed in much the same manner as misdemeanor criminal charges (they were to be calendared and prosecuted by the district attorney, proved beyond a … Read more

blank

The Skinny on Substance Abuse Assessment and Treatment for DWI Offenders

When a person’s license is revoked for certain offenses involving impaired driving, the person must, before his or her license may be restored, obtain a substance abuse assessment and complete the treatment or education recommended based on that assessment. G.S. 20-17.6. This requirement applies when a person’s license is revoked upon conviction of any of … Read more

blank

Lee v. Gore: Averment of Willful Refusal Necessary before DMV Can Revoke

The North Carolina Supreme Court decided Lee v. Gore last Friday, affirming the court of appeals and holding that DMV lacked authority to revoke the petitioner’s driving privileges pursuant to G.S. 20-16.2 based upon an affidavit that failed to allege that he willfully refused to submit to a chemical analysis.  I’ve written about this case … Read more

blank

DWI Sentencing Changes

In addition to enacting the aggravated level one punishment for impaired driving discussed here, the 2011 General Assembly amended the requirements for imposing a Level One impaired driving sentence, effective for offenses committed on or after December 1, 2011. Most readers likely are familiar with the sentencing scheme set forth in G.S. 20-179, which governs … Read more

blank

Qualifying Convictions for Purposes of Habitual DWI

G.S. 20-138.5(a) provides that “[a] person commits the offense of habitual impaired driving if he or she drives while impaired as defined in G.S. 20-138.1 and has been convicted of three or more offenses involving impaired driving as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(24a) within 10 years of the date of this offense.” Unlike the habitual felon … Read more

blank

S.L. 2011-385 Targets Unsafe Driving by Teenagers

Fifteen years ago, the General Assembly enacted S.L. 1997-16, implementing graduated driver’s licenses requirements for people under the age of 18, who are termed provisional licensees. Pursuant to G.S. 20-11, driving privileges are granted to minors on a limited basis and are expanded as a provisional licensee meets additional requirements. The process is designed to … Read more

Post-Release Supervision for Aggravated Level One DWI Offenders

Shea Denning summarized S.L. 2011-191, Laura’s Law, in a prior post. To recap, the law adds a new punishment level for impaired driving sentencing, Aggravated Level One (hereinafter Level A1), for situations in which three or more grossly aggravating factors apply. Today’s post picks up on some of the points Shea mentioned in her earlier … Read more

blank

Laura’s Law

In yesterday’s post, Jeff mentioned Laura’s Law, which increases the maximum punishment for impaired driving.  Today’s post discusses those provisions in more detail. S.L. 2011-191, dubbed Laura’s Law in recognition of 17-year-old Laura Fortenberry, who died last summer when the car she was riding in was struck by an impaired driver who had previous DWI … Read more