Justice Elena Kagon wrote the concurring opinion for the case of HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA. Justice Kagon furthered her reasoning by listing more information concerning the topic of the case. That goes as said that the government cannot protect an officer under ignorance of the law even if they weren't told, unaware, or untrained in the law. The individual officer's understanding of the law does/will not justify an arrest and/or seizure. With that being said immunity for ignorance of the law is given only to those without pure stupidity (judgement wise) or lack of consideration by pure obstruction of the law. More so if the question of the interpretation of the law is seemly difficult and much thought is used to obtain the reasoning of the actions then, and only then, can an officer be excused for, and not held responsible for, the misinterpretation of the law at hand. In this case the law stated that there must be a stop light (break light) on a car and all originally equipped lighting equipment operating properly. Since the mandate stated that all originally equipped lighting equipment be functioning properly it is in the courts right to mandate weather the stop light and other lightning equipment are in the same class and should function as such. The state calls for it separate, however, the court could easily take the officers view and say that they must all function properly. With that being said the traffic stop conducted by the officer was in right and in no means violating Heien's Fourth Amendment.