- 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 says its ok for cops to be ignorant of the law in their duties
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:07 pm
WashPo
Slate
NBC News
Amazing how the law doesn't apply to the police, but the people are still held to that standard. Another bad ruling from SCOTUS.
Slate
NBC News
quote:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a police officer's mistaken idea of the law doesn't make an arrest and a search invalid, as long as the officer's understanding of the law was reasonable. The case evolved from a traffic stop in 2009, in which Nicholas Heien was pulled over on Interstate 77 in North Carolina by a county sheriff's deputy because one of his brake lights was out. After getting permission to search the car, the deputy found a baggie of cocaine, and Heien was charged with drug trafficking.
But it turned out North Carolina law did not require cars to have two brake lights. The state law said they must have "a" stop lamp on the rear and elsewhere referred to "the" stop lamp, meaning the deputy was apparently wrong about the law. Heien's lawyer — backed by civil liberties groups — said if a law wasn't being broken, there was no authority to arrest him or conduct a search. But by a 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court said the arrest and the search were valid, even if the officer was wrong about the law. The Fourth Amendment bars "unreasonable" searches and seizures, the court said. "To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials," said the opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Amazing how the law doesn't apply to the police, but the people are still held to that standard. Another bad ruling from SCOTUS.
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:09 pm to NYNolaguy1
They only continued a ruling that has been around for many years. This isn't a new ruling. ETA: Better way to say that is this isn't a new decision that they just decided on.
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 1:12 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:10 pm to NYNolaguy1
Fruit of a poisonous tree.
quote:
Another bad ruling from SCOTUS
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:11 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
SCOTUS says its ok for cops can to be ignorant of the law in their duties
When are you applying to the academy?
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:11 pm to NYNolaguy1
What happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse?
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:11 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials,"
but not citizens?
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:12 pm to NYNolaguy1
I'm confused. Why did he give them permission to search the car?
It seems like one doesn't have anything to do with the other...
It seems like one doesn't have anything to do with the other...
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:12 pm to CadesCove
quote:
When are you applying to the academy?
After I get off my phone.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:13 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:Well they're ignorant of everything else. Why exclude the law?
SCOTUS says its ok for cops to be ignorant of the law in their duties
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:14 pm to efrad
quote:
I'm confused. Why did he give them permission to search the car?
B/c he's dumb
quote:
It seems like one doesn't have anything to do with the other...
Well...if he wasn't breaking any laws, then he legally can't pull him over.
ETA: Well I guess the SCOTUS think he can so whatever.
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:17 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
What happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse?
That only applies to people not in government.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:19 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
Well...if he wasn't breaking any laws, then he legally can't pull him over.
Yeah, but a cop wouldn't have any reason to search a car for a broken tail light anyway.
So I'm wondering why the cop wanted to search in the first place. But regardless, I don't understand why this guy thinks he should get off on this after giving the cop permission to search his car...
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:21 pm to NYNolaguy1
Doesn't the fact that the guy consented to the search make the cops ignorance a moot point?
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:22 pm to efrad
quote:
But regardless, I don't understand why this guy thinks he should get off on this after giving the cop permission to search his car...
I just think this creates a scary precedent where police no longer have to worry about being right or wrong about the law, so long as a court thinks their understanding is reasonable.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:24 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
After getting permission to search the car, the deputy found a baggie of cocaine, and Heien was charged with drug trafficking.
The driver gave permission to search.
It sounds to me that the "ignorant" police officer outsmarted the defendant.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:26 pm to NYNolaguy1
And here I thought "ignorance of the law is no excuse?" I guess that only applies to citizens...
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:26 pm to ZereauxSum
Yea, but what people are pissed about is that he was pulled over when he shouldn't have been. This ruling is nothing new like another poster said.
The hipocracy that the government can claim ignorance but the public can't is what is frustrating.
The consent to search was valid and did not violate the Fourth amendment. It was his dumbass fault for consenting.
The hipocracy that the government can claim ignorance but the public can't is what is frustrating.
The consent to search was valid and did not violate the Fourth amendment. It was his dumbass fault for consenting.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:26 pm to efrad
quote:
I'm wondering why the cop wanted to search in the first place
Just about every police academy teaches you to ask for consent to search, and I'd it's on an interstate or an area with drug trafficking you can bet that in 90% of the stops the cops asks to search.
quote:
I don't understand why this guy thinks he should get off on this after giving the cop permission to search his car...
I see the point you're making, but for me it reverts to the guy not being in that situation to allow the search to begin with.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:29 pm to brass2mouth
SCOTUS and WaPo You win the lack of verbal skills award
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:35 pm to swamplynx
quote:
Yea, but what people are pissed about is that he was pulled over when he shouldn't have been. This ruling is nothing new like another poster said.
I get that, but cops make BS stops all the time when the actually know the law. This is one of the few times where the cop wasn't intentionally trying to screw someone.
quote:
The hipocracy that the government can claim ignorance but the public can't is what is frustrating.
I don't think they are saying his ignorance excuses anything, I think they are saying that his ignorance doesnt invalidate the search and arrest, which is true because the idiot driver gave consent to search.
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 1:36 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News