- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS rules ignorance of a law IS an excuse.....if you're a cop
Posted on 12/16/14 at 4:18 am
Posted on 12/16/14 at 4:18 am
LINK /
11
Posted on 12/16/14 at 5:19 am to Eurocat
TL DR
Posted on 12/16/14 at 5:21 am to Eurocat
So much for equality under the law.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 6:23 am to Eurocat
I had actually been anticipating this decision. Embarrassing to say the least.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 6:44 am to Rickety Cricket
sadly it falls in line with other similar decisions, like the "good faith" exception to warrants and allowing the fruits of searches based on later-overturned laws. that's why those new illinois laws are scary. until they're overturned, they are dangerous
Posted on 12/16/14 at 6:45 am to Eurocat
quote:
In a splintered 8-1 ruling, the court found that cops who pulled over Nicholas Heien for a broken taillight were justified in a subsequent search of Heien’s car, even though North Carolina law says that having just one broken taillight is not a violation of the law.
The ruling means that police did not violate Heien’s rights when they later searched his car and found cocaine, and that the cocaine evidence can’t be suppressed at a later trial. But it also means that the U.S. Supreme Court declined the opportunity to draw a line limiting the scope of police stops, at a time when they are as rampant and racially disproportionate as ever. Instead, police may have considerably more leeway to stop passengers on the road, even in a number of jurisdictions that had previously said cops are not justified in mistakes of law.
The case hinged on a question of “reasonableness.” North Carolina’s law requires that a driver have one working rear taillight, not two. But the law also has some other language that suggests “other” lamps be in “working order.” If there was any ambiguity about this statute, the North Carolina Supreme Court has cleared it up, holding that the “other” lamps language does not refer to tail lights.
Nonetheless, because the statute is confusing, the state argued that the cops had made a “reasonable” mistake when they pulled over Heien for having one tail light, and thus were not precluded from using the evidence that came out of that stop.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 6:49 am to Eurocat
Maybe link the case and not think progress. I am guessing that ruling isn't exactly what you and think progress portray it as.
I could be completely wrong...but having the actual ruling to read would be nice.
I could be completely wrong...but having the actual ruling to read would be nice.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 7:13 am to BBONDS25
quote:I can't speak for this link but the basis arguments the court went with are
Maybe link the case and not think progress. I am guessing that ruling isn't exactly what you and think progress portray it as.
1)Officers aren't expected to act perfectly, just reasonably.
2)The perp consented to the search.
Of course, someone like me would point out that often, people aren't aware of if they MUST comply with an officer's request. Other people are just plain scared and say yes. Finally, the person wouldn't even be getting asked for a search if he hadn't been improperly pulled over in the first place.
The net effect of this ruling is that while cops are obligated to tell you you have the right to remain silent, they are not obligated to tell you that you don't have to consent to a search and, if they can appear "reasonable", they can pull over pretty much anyone that fits a vague bill and ask to search. If the suspect is too dumb to know he doesn't have to say yes, then gotcha.
That latin wench is right on this one.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 8:43 am to ShortyRob
If that is the case this is hardly a "new" ruling:
United States v. Drayton, 153 L Ed 2d 242 (2002) U.S. Supreme Court;
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,
412 U.S. 218 (1973)
Officers do not need to advise people of their right to refuse consent or to cooperate.
United States v. Drayton, 153 L Ed 2d 242 (2002) U.S. Supreme Court;
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,
412 U.S. 218 (1973)
Officers do not need to advise people of their right to refuse consent or to cooperate.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 8:45 am to Eurocat
quote:yeah. If you've got drugs.
When cops mistakenly pull over citizens, a subsequent drug prosecution is one of just a number of adverse consequences that can follow.
The problem isn't the scotus. Its the legislatures and Congress
This post was edited on 12/16/14 at 8:54 am
Posted on 12/16/14 at 8:51 am to Rickety Cricket
quote:
Embarrassing to say the least.
Do you have the right to transport cocaine in your car without fear of discovery??? If so, then you should endeavor to get it legalized.
I just don't understand the knee-jerk responses of so many people re law enforcement.
The objections to this sort of thing should be that the LEOs are pulling over innocent people and searching their cars, finding nothing, and leaving the cars contents in a mess. Now THAT would be worthy of protestation.
I just cannot manufacture any sympathy for cocaine traffickers. Sorry.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 8:55 am to ChineseBandit58
I'd imagine few would protest if the cop had found a body
Posted on 12/16/14 at 8:55 am to Eurocat
Don't have the ruling to read by Roberts' statements are scary. Kind of puts the Fourth Amendment on notice.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 8:58 am to ChineseBandit58
It's a slippery slope.
What if it's not
What if LA bans transporting porn, or watermelons, or for whatever reason, bans transporting handguns in cars, and you are ILLEGALLY pulled over? Then the cops find the illegal substance, and wham, you're stuck just like this "druggie".
The point in the ruling is that cops can UNLAWFULLY detain a citizen, take time to find something "illegal" on them, then that CITIZEN faces persecution.
What if it's not
quote:that you transport?
cocaine
What if LA bans transporting porn, or watermelons, or for whatever reason, bans transporting handguns in cars, and you are ILLEGALLY pulled over? Then the cops find the illegal substance, and wham, you're stuck just like this "druggie".
The point in the ruling is that cops can UNLAWFULLY detain a citizen, take time to find something "illegal" on them, then that CITIZEN faces persecution.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 9:05 am to CherryGarciaMan
There is a link in the OP's link to the 29 page opinion. All this did was confirm MANY past decisions.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 9:06 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
I just cannot manufacture any sympathy for cocaine traffickers. Sorry.
So the end always justifies the means? It's always okay to do whatever it takes, as long as a cocaine trafficker gets caught? How many innocent drivers will then be harassed to catch one cocaine trafficker?
Let's just let the police do whatever the hell they want. They pretty much do anyway.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 9:07 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:I would.
Posted by SpidermanTUba I'd imagine few would protest if the cop had found a body
I'm glad to see that you support the current caste system though.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 9:08 am to CherryGarciaMan
quote:
bans transporting handguns in cars, and you are ILLEGALLY pulled over? Then the cops find the illegal substance, and wham, you're stuck just like this "druggie".
I have run this risk - in California. So when I am there, I am very careful about my driving.
I don't take my handguns apart, and lock the several pieces away in separate places, because I carry them to protect myself in case of an attempted car-jacking.
I weigh the risk and decide if they get taken away, I'll just resupply myself ASAP. I won't unnecessarily risk my life because California is filled with idiots.
My 'lawbreaking' is specifically protected by the 2nd amendment. Transporting cocaine is not.
My 'lawbreaking' is of no harm to anyone who is not trying to do me physical, violent, harm.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 9:11 am to BayouBlitz
quote:
How many innocent drivers will then be harassed to catch one cocaine trafficker?
Perhaps you should try reading the entire post before your knee starts jerking in response to a selected phrase.
I covered exactly that point in my post - I won't repeat it here.
context man - try it.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 9:12 am to Scruffy
quote:
few would protest if the cop had found a body
====
I would.
really??? wtf?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News