mr. scalia -- justice scalia and i'd like to reserve my time. >> thank you. mr. montgomery. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. the fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures but it does not require police officers be perfect. it calls the touchdown of the fourth mend is reasonableness all that is required is that a police officer has a reasonable view of the facts and applies those facts to a reasonable understanding of the law. >> when will we ever get a right understanding of the law meaning the north carolina supreme court decision still hasn't told me whether it's one or two and an ex-police officer who wants to stop someone won't either. he may be bound by the appellate court decision but that won't help clarify the state of the love. isn't what you are doing to read criminal law unclear? it's one thing to say that you want to not subject officers to civil liability. it's another to say you want to make the law clearing a criminal prosecution. >> your honor in north carolina controlling precedent does come from the intervening court of appeals

scalia. i'd like to reserve the rest of my time. >> thank you, mr. fisher. mr. montgomery. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court, the fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures but it does not require that police officers be perfect. because the touch stone of the fourth amendment is reasonableness, all that is required is that a police officer have a reasonable view of the facts and apply those facts to a reasonable understanding of the law. >> will we ever get an understanding, the right understanding of the law? meaning as i read the north carolina supreme court decision, it still hasn't told me whether it's one or two brake lights. and the next police officer who wants to stop someone won't know that either. now, he may be bound by the appellate court decision, but that won't help clarify the state of the law. isn't what you're doing going to leave criminal law uncarelear? it's one thing to say you don't want to subject officers to civil liability. it's another to say you want to leave the law unclear in a criminal prosecution. >> well, your honor

scalia. i'd like to reserve the rest of my time. >> thank you, mr. fisher. mr. montgomery. >> mr.ef justice and may it please the court, the fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures but it does not require that police officers be perfect. because the touchstone of the fourth amendment is reasonableness, all that is required is that a police officer have a reasonable view of the facts and apply those facts to a reasonable understanding of the law. >> will we ever get an understanding, the right understanding of the law? meaning as i read the north carolina supreme court decision, it still hasn't told me whether it's one or two brake lights. and the next police officer who wants to stop someone won't know that either. now, he may be bound by the appellate court decision, but that won't help clarify the state of the law. isn't what you're doing going to leave criminal law unclear? it's one thing to say you don't want to subject officers to civil liability. it's another to say you want to leave the law unclear in a criminal prosecution. >> well, your honor, in nor