Can’t have the people thinking that they are in control of the government.
It’s scary to agree with the wise Latina.
One League Step.
From here on forward, ignorance of the law is only an excuse the police can use. What will stop them from always saying they thought a crime was committed.
Lock and load!
This article is a misrepresentation of the facts of the case and ruling.
Key to the particulars is the fact that the driver CONSENTED to a search of his vehicle. Never consent to a search, even if you think you have nothing to hide.
The guy consented a vehicle search and probably signed a consent form. There’s no magic in that!
We have to stop looking to the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of our rights. The problems mount because considered opinions, right or wrong, are never discarded. And sophistry is lauded, not eschewed. Justices think that it’s cute when they can devise strange theorems about the law which only appear to have the imprimatur of legitimacy, but in truth completely dismantle a well-ordered society.
The links are google searches.
The original article written by the Rutherford Institute is here: (U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law)
Police State : 2015
I think that SCOTUS got it right; yes, she won her appeal on the tail light ticket, but no, the stop was still valid and so was her consent to let the car be searched and the resulting charges from that search. I think it is unreasonable to expect that officers to be fortune tellers who will know that a law that has been enforced in a particular way for decades would be re-interpreted. I don't think that anyone - prosecution or defense - should benefit from creative gotcha litigation in the appeals process.
There is is folks. This is the demarcation line. From now on we are in the final days of the Republic.
God help us all.
Ehhh...
I’m certainly alarmed at the erosion of our civil liberties in the face of a growing police state, but I’m not sure that the issue is as cut-and-dry as “Police Can Violate the 4th Amendment.”
It’s always struck me as odd that the people’s award for police misconduct is that murderers get set free to kill more of the people.
SCENARIO ONE:
Deranged mass-murderer is driving down the road with a bloody corpse in the back seat. He comes to a stop. A policeman notices his rear tail light is out, so he signals for him to pull over. On looking in the car window, he sees a decapitated corpse and arrests the serial killer. Oh, no! The law says both tail lights must be malfunctioning! The serial killer gets set free!
SCENARIO TWO:
An internet journalist has posted several incidents of alleged police brutality online. The police suspect the journalist is using an illegal police radio to track down racially charged incidents. A squad car sees the journalist heading towards a crime scene. “We got her this time!” cackles Cop 1 to Cop 2, “her tail light is busted! We have an excuse to search her car!” “But the law says...” “Shut up, Newbie! I have an excuse and I don’t want you blowing this on me!”
Clearly, there is a distinction between these cases, is there not? Can’t a lower court or judge still find a cops alleged ignorance of the law doesn’t give him carte-blanche authority to do whatever he pleases?
The article is not representing the truth in this case.
I am not sure you have read all of it , but much of this article is distorting the truth and not sure why it’s breaking news seeing as it’s not accurate either.
No wonder they rule like they rule. They know they can’t be held responsible by being removed from office.
Can’t wait to hear what Mark Levin has to say on this...
Good gravy, the only Justice who agrees with me on this is freaking Sotomayor.
Chilling.
The supremes have been wrong before.