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

quote:

---

The state has literally managed to set a lower bar for its agents that enforce the law than the one they require of the citizens.

---

its terrifying. Now they don't even need to come up with a valid reason to stop you, they can just stop you and then search your persons under the name they reasonably thought you were breaking the law.

Conservatives should be very scared. You think the FBI would not have this apply to them? Or overall homeland security. They could detain you for something that is legal, and then just troll through your shite to find something they can arrest you on.

if you think the DOJ is not above this, you would be 100% incorrect.

quote:

---

No it does not. If a cop cannot articulate their actions then those actions well not survive a motion to does by a competent attorney.

---

Well, um, not for nothing but unless cops are just naturally stupid, I can imagine that if one lived in a state where he KNEW the law only required ONE tail light be operational, he could simply pretend not to know and be called "reasonable". Ya know, sort of like in this case. Not saying this cop did know but hey, even if he did, it's sort of a WIDE opening for abuse.

quote:

---

This search involved consent.

---

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.

quote:

---

So basically this case says, if you are to stupid regarding your rights

---

Could be just as easily be used to argue for eliminating Miranda. Hell, I'd say telling me I don't have a legal obligation to talk is LESS important than telling me I don't have to let you in my car.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Like this?
LINK

Or this?
LINK

quote:

---

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.

---

That isn't the point. The point isn't whether this officer is rogue or not. The point is that the burden should be upon the state to be right when a stop is made.

quote:

---

The critical point is that the statute poses a quite difficult question of interpretation,

---

NOT the citizen's problem. It is absurd that the state can use "Well we're idiots so that's why our agent was confused" as a defense. Again, the citizen can't use that argument when he is confused by law. Why the frick does the state get to use it?

quote:

---

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

---

I didn't say it would lead to such a ban. Didn't even imply it. I simply used the fact that we sort of think it's important to tell people their rights when it comes to talking but apparently, if we can fool them into letting us search them, all good!!!!

Eight to one ruling and only one has sense, our odds don't look for justice!