re: SCOTUS rules ignorance of a law IS an excuse.....if you're a cop

From the opinion, not Roberts. The problem is the unclear north Carolina statute. It only took the courts this long to figure out. The police sergeant that made the stop was clearly rouge I suppose.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals dealt with the statute’s conflicting signals in one way (deciding that a brake light is not a rear lamp, and so only one needs to work); but a court could easily take the officer’s view (deciding that a brake light is a rear lamp, and if a car comes equipped with more than one, as mod- ern cars do, all must be in working order). The critical point is that the statute poses a quite difficult question of interpretation, and Sergeant Darisse’s judgment, although overturned, had much to recommend it. I therefore agree with the Court that the traffic stop he conducted did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

quote:

---

Interestingly, the courts have long understood that suspects are terrible lawyers. Hence, why they are supposed to be told of their rights prior to speaking.

---

Arizona v. Johnson, ___ U.S. __; 129 S.Ct. 781 (2009)

U.S. v. Everett, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7107 (April 06, 2010)

Really?There is no categorical ban on suspicionless, unrelated questions that may minimally prolong a traffic stop.

Let me get you a ladder because saying this will lead to an elimination of Miranda is reaching on a grand scale.