- 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 1:18 pm to ShortyRob
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 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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News