- 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
re: SCOTUS says its ok for cops to be ignorant of the law in their duties
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:39 pm to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:39 pm to NYNolaguy1
Do any of the links have the pdf of the ruling?
2
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:40 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
SCOTUS and WaPo You win the lack of verbal skills award
Jeaux...you fricking suck so goddamn much
ETA: Why isnt this thread on the Politardboard?
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:42 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
Do any of the links have the pdf of the ruling?
The NBC article does under "In Depth"
29 pages. It's TL'DR
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:42 pm to SabiDojo
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:45 pm to NYNolaguy1
Thanks, guys. 
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:50 pm to rondo
hey Rondo Evar? Please sir? You get the point? That's the goal
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:09 pm to ZereauxSum
quote:
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 is exactly what they are saying. But, the controversy is that he wouldn't have been pulled over in the first place but for the cops ignorance of the actual law. The article is focusing on this issue not the actual consent to search.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:13 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:Pray tell
Another bad ruling from SCOTUS.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:14 pm to efrad
quote:
So I'm wondering why the cop wanted to search in the first place
taillight was a pretext
guy was dumb for consenting to search, but what happens when you don't consent? Po-Po gets mad.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:17 pm to Mung
quote:
but what happens when you don't consent? Po-Po gets mad.
Yea, what happens if you refuse to let them search? They just call in the drug dogs?
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:20 pm to NYNolaguy1
Cops don't obey the law, they just enforce it as they see fit.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:21 pm to swamplynx
quote:
The hipocracy that the government can claim ignorance but the public can't is what is frustrating.
Exactly. So as a citizen I have to know the law backwards and forwards as not to break any. But those that are paid to enforce the very same laws just need to have a general understanding of it so as to be deemed "reasonable"
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:26 pm to nes2010
quote:They can't extend the stop beyond what is reasonable for the alleged offense that caused the stop to allow time for drug dogs to get there.
They just call in the drug dogs?
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:27 pm to etm512
quote:
just need to have a general understanding of it so as to be deemed "reasonable
Yea, it's some bullshite. If it reasonably believe that I'm not committing a crime, I still go to jail for a few years. But, it's ok for a cop to run around enforcing laws that don't exist because he thinks they do.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:29 pm to nes2010
Since I don't get off work until late I often get pulled over by brpd fishing for a DWI. I have been pulled over 2x and been asked to search.
Both times I refused just for the sole purpose of seeing what would happen (I don't do drugs so I'm never carrying and I also dont drink and drive).
Both times the cop became very aggravated and made me sit on the side of the interstate while we waited on a k9 unit. They get the dog to sniff my car and miraculously he "hits" (total bullshite because they direct the dog to hit).
They then got to search my vehicle which turned up only my handgun which I warned was there when they started the search.
They were so aggravated by the end because I'm sure they figured they just hit the jackpot pulling over a single 20's male at 2 am speeding on the interstate.
Both times I refused just for the sole purpose of seeing what would happen (I don't do drugs so I'm never carrying and I also dont drink and drive).
Both times the cop became very aggravated and made me sit on the side of the interstate while we waited on a k9 unit. They get the dog to sniff my car and miraculously he "hits" (total bullshite because they direct the dog to hit).
They then got to search my vehicle which turned up only my handgun which I warned was there when they started the search.
They were so aggravated by the end because I'm sure they figured they just hit the jackpot pulling over a single 20's male at 2 am speeding on the interstate.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:29 pm to swamplynx
quote:
If it reasonably believe that I'm not committing a crime, I still go to jail for a few years. But, it's ok for a cop to run around enforcing laws that don't exist because he thinks they do.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:30 pm to swamplynx
quote:That isn't what this ruling says. It says that a search isn't constitutionally unreasonable where the initial stop was based on a reasonable mistake of the law.
But, it's ok for a cop to run around enforcing laws that don't exist because he thinks they do.
You can disagree with the opinion without the hyperbole.
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:32 pm to WDE24
All an officer has to do is state on his report that you appear "impaired" and they can extend the stop to get k9.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:33 pm to nes2010
quote:
but what happens when you don't consent? Po-Po gets mad.
Yea, what happens if you refuse to let them search? They just call in the drug dogs?
Then, at that point, you have a violation of the driver's 4th amendment rights. He waived his 4th amendment rights by consenting to the search.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:33 pm to baseballmind1212
The SCOTUS can't prevent corruption and lying.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News