- 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 2:37 pm to WDE24
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:37 pm to WDE24
quote:
You can disagree with the opinion without the hyperbole.
I don't disagree with the ruling. The ruling actually makes sense to me. He consented to the search. It was clear. Plus, when you find drugs SCOTUS wants that shite to come in.
What is wrong is that the officer doesn't know the law, and it is unlikely that there are going to be any steps to correct this. I'm sure there are many like him.
0
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:40 pm to swamplynx
quote:
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.
Yeah, and the article is focusing on the wrong thing IMO.
I get that the search never happens if the invalid stop never happens. My point is that the legitimacy of the stop becomes irrelevant after the driver consents to a search.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:44 pm to ZereauxSum
quote:
I get that the search never happens if the invalid stop never happens. My point is that the legitimacy of the stop becomes irrelevant after the driver consents to a search.
Agreed. The ruling isn't bad. What is bad is the officer not knowing the actual law.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:46 pm to swamplynx
quote:
Agreed. The ruling isn't bad. What is bad is the officer not knowing the actual law.
I can agree with that. And I also agree that there are probably a lot of cops who make similar mistakes.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:48 pm to swamplynx
quote:I'm not sure I agree with the ruling. I agree with the reasonable mistake in fact rulings, but the SCOTUS equated a mistake in fact with a mistake in law. The law is much easier to learn and discern before reasonable police action than facts often are. I think equating the two is wrong.
Agreed. The ruling isn't bad. What is bad is the officer not knowing the actual law.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:52 pm to ZereauxSum
If the search happened without consent and they ruled this way, I'd be really angry about it. The article should have done a better job explaining what it wanted to say other than just blasting the ruling. It makes SCOTUS look bad how it's written because the law is spot on. I didn't read the opinion, but hopefully somewhere there is an aside calling the cop a jackass for pulling him over and then commending him on getting consent.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:59 pm to swamplynx
quote:
If the search happened without consent and they ruled this way, I'd be really angry about it
After reading the majority ruling, I am not sure if it would have made that much difference. Granted I am not a lawyer.
From Justice Robert's opinion:
quote:
The question here is whether reasonable suspicion can rest on a mistaken understanding of the scope of a legal prohibition. We hold that it can.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:02 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:It would have. The majority opinion is reasonable and doesn't hold what the title of this thread claims.
After reading the majority ruling, I am not sure if it would have made that much difference.
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:09 pm to swamplynx
quote:
If the search happened without consent and they ruled this way, I'd be really angry about it
I would have a different opinion also, unless the guy had lines of coke on the dashboard or something.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:09 pm to NYNolaguy1
Reasonable suspicion =/= probable cause. He only needs reasonable suspicion to make the stop. He needs probable cause or consent to search the vehicle. If he would have stopped and searched without getting consent, it would violate the 4th Amendment.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:12 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
quote: The question here is whether reasonable suspicion can rest on a mistaken understanding of the scope of a legal prohibition. We hold that it can.
Not a lawyer either, and I haven't read the whole opinion, but isn't he just saying that if a cop makes an erroneous stop and hears screaming from the trunk, you can't just let a child kidnapper go because of the illegitimate stop?
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:14 pm to ZereauxSum
I think the concurring opinion, which emphasizes and more clearly lays out the restrictions to the mistake of law permitted by the majority opinion, is worth reading to understand the context and limited scope of this opinion.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:18 pm to WDE24
Can't read it now, but I'll chime in again after I have the time to read it, if the thread is still going.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:23 pm to NYNolaguy1
That's not actually the holding, here.
Kagen's concurring opinion emphasizes that an "objectively reasonable" mistake of law does not invalidate a stop. Pure (subjective) ignorance of the law probably does. The statute at issue was poorly worded.
But I wish they had woven consent/lack of consent into the opinion. It's barely mentioned.
This ruling is consistent with Michigan v. DeFillippo, which is arguably more permissive.
Kagen's concurring opinion emphasizes that an "objectively reasonable" mistake of law does not invalidate a stop. Pure (subjective) ignorance of the law probably does. The statute at issue was poorly worded.
But I wish they had woven consent/lack of consent into the opinion. It's barely mentioned.
This ruling is consistent with Michigan v. DeFillippo, which is arguably more permissive.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:30 pm to NYNolaguy1
Thanks for making me angry!!!!! 
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:39 pm to WDE24
For once I agree with Sotomayor. I really disagree with this section of the majority ruling.
Except that's exactly what happened. The cop thought he could pull someone over based on observing one headlight, when in fact the law said otherwise. Because of that action, the government imposed criminal liability on Mr. Heien.
Granted that's pretty much the argument made by Heien's lawyers, and the Supreme Court rejected it
quote:
Finally, Heien and amici point to the well-known maxim, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” and contend that it is fundamentally unfair to let police officers get away with mistakes of law when the citizenry is accorded no such leeway. Though this argument has a certain rhetorical appeal, it misconceives the implication of the maxim. The true symmetry is this: Just as an individual generally cannot escape criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law, so too the government cannot impose criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law. If the law required two working brake lights, Heien could not escape a ticket by claiming he reasonably thought he needed only one; if the law required only one, Sergeant Darisse could not issue a valid ticket by claiming he reasonably thought drivers needed two. But just because mistakes of law cannot justify either the imposition or the avoidance of criminal liability, it does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop.
Except that's exactly what happened. The cop thought he could pull someone over based on observing one headlight, when in fact the law said otherwise. Because of that action, the government imposed criminal liability on Mr. Heien.
Granted that's pretty much the argument made by Heien's lawyers, and the Supreme Court rejected it
Posted on 12/18/14 at 4:34 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:No it isn't. The guy didn't get a ticket for only having one working taillight.
Except that's exactly what happened.
After consenting to a search, he was arrested for the drugs he was carrying.
The criminal liability was not related to the mistake of law.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 4:46 pm to swamplynx
quote:
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.
You're not the first person to say this, but this issue displays people's lack of understanding of how the law works.
The saying, "ignorance is no excuse" is in relation to criminal law. This situation is entirely focused on the law of evidence. The two are fundamentally different.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News