- 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 rules ignorance of a law IS an excuse.....if you're a cop
Posted on 12/16/14 at 12:46 pm to Five0
Posted on 12/16/14 at 12:46 pm to Five0
quote:Didn't really say it was new. It's still complete horse shite, but yeah, our govt has protected itself at the expense of citizens for quite some time.
If that is the case this is hardly a "new" ruling:
Posted on 12/16/14 at 12:50 pm to Five0
quote:Again, that this is the case really should bother Americans. Alas, Americans are awfully bad at understanding what bad people(including cops) can do with such a legal view.
There is a link in the OP's link to the 29 page opinion. All this did was confirm MANY past decisions.
Basically, what this belief regarding police work allows is cops to manufacture reasons to pull people over in order to gain access to potential crimes they would otherwise be unable to get after.
It also pretty much negates the need for officers to REALLY know the law as long as they can be argued to have been "reasonable" in now knowing.
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.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 1:01 pm to ShortyRob
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.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 1:01 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Basically, what this belief regarding police work allows is cops to manufacture reasons to pull people over in order to gain access to potential crimes they would otherwise be unable to get after.
No it does not. If a cop cannot articulate their actions then those actions will not survive a motion to suppress by a competent attorney. This search involved consent. So basically this case says, if you are too stupid regarding your rights be smart enough to keep your cocaine at home.
This post was edited on 12/16/14 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 12/16/14 at 1:05 pm to Five0
quote: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.
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.
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.
This search involved consent.
quote: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.
So basically this case says, if you are to stupid regarding your rights
Posted on 12/16/14 at 1:07 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:Yep. And laws are quirky from state to state. I mean hey, I assumed that a broken tail light was a valid stop. I'd have had no idea that it wasn't in this state.
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.
Alas, I'm not a cop. The cop sort of ought to know. The courts are basically saying that because it's sort of a normal assumption by normal folks that two tail lights out are valid stops, that this somehow makes the cop's actions "reasonable".
That's just flat out retarded.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 1:18 pm to ShortyRob
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.
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.
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.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 1:54 pm to Eurocat
Horrible ruling.
Just awful.
Just awful.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 1:54 pm to Eurocat
Source seems legit Why not just read the Court's opinion. Then you might be able to better understand what they're talking about.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 1:58 pm to ChineseBandit58
Posted on 12/16/14 at 2:45 pm to Eurocat
Worried about a crook hey ?
LMAO
Posted on 12/16/14 at 2:52 pm to Five0
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
The critical point is that the statute poses a quite difficult question of interpretation,
Posted on 12/16/14 at 2:53 pm to Five0
quote:Yes. It's a great ruling if one operates from the assumption that state actors aren't prone to slip through gaping holed in principals.
I therefore agree with the Court that the traffic stop he conducted did not violate the Fourth
Alas, if that assumption were true, we wouldn't need a constitution at all.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 2:55 pm to Five0
quote: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!!!!
Let me get you a ladder because saying this will lead to an elimination of Miranda is reaching on a grand scale.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 4:09 pm to Eurocat
Embarrassing and completely disregards the 4th amendment.
This is just another example of the judiciary failing to reign in the militarized state of law enforcement.
This is just another example of the judiciary failing to reign in the militarized state of law enforcement.
Posted on 12/17/14 at 1:11 pm to ShortyRob
Eight to one ruling and only one has sense, our odds don't look for justice!
Posted on 12/17/14 at 1:42 pm to CherryGarciaMan
quote:
What if LA bans transporting porn, or watermelons, or for whatever reason, bans transporting handguns in cars, and you are ILLEGALLY pulled over?
if you want the laws changed then try and get them changed, but calling the law as it is, "illegal", doesn't further your cause, it just makes you look like a fuked up stoner with no clue.
Many cops will ask during the initial contact if you are carrying any "contraband" which is their out to try and not get nailed on a technicality of being specific. I don't blame you for being against drug laws and the war on drugs in general, it's a huge waste of resources and a large impediment on individual freedom.
If you are really for MORE freedom you should start support Libertarians instead of the leftwing turds you dope smoking morons typically throw in with.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News