Posted on 12/16/2014 7:46:02 AM PST by Olog-hai
Police can use evidence seized during a traffic stop even if it turns out the officers initially pulled a car over based on a misunderstanding of the law, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The 8-1 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts said that such a stop does not violate the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches.
The ruling came in a North Carolina case in which a police officer pulled over Nicholas Heien’s car because the right brake light was out, although the left one still worked. A consensual search led to the discovery of cocaine in the trunk.
A state appeals court said the stop was impermissible because a quirky state law only requires a car to have one functioning brake light. But the state’s highest court reversed, finding that the officer’s mistaken reading of the law was reasonable.
The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the Fourth Amendment requires police to act reasonably, but not perfectly. Roberts said that just as a police officer’s mistake of fact can justify a traffic stop, a reasonable misunderstanding about the law can also satisfy the Constitution. …
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
YOU do not.
“So Roberts just said that ignorance of the law is an excuse. “
He was not given a ticket for his brake lights.
He was charged with cocaine possession after he consented to a search of his car.
There's the problem. The answer is always "Only with a warrant." Even if you have nothing to hide and the police have threatened to make your day miserable my forcing you to wait for hours you have a responsibility to freedom to make it difficult and force them to get the warrant. If everyone did, the courts would be so overloaded they wouldn't be able to get them.
This is a HORRIBLE POS ruling. It will lead to many more abuses by police.
I’m really surprised by this one.
What happened to the old “fruit of the poisoned tree?”
Once again, SCOTUS sides with police vs. people.
PFL
Yup. You caught the key word there alright: CONSENTED.
There is no constitutional right to drive. I expect the local police to be pro-active when drivers don't obey the laws when they pass through town.
Um, I meant consensual...
Not so in 4th amendment jurisprudence. The government decides what constitutes "reasonable," and it voices its application of the word via the courts.
Ignorance of the law is nearly always a viable excuse when the government is the offender. The old legal maxim, "the King can do no wrong" never faded.
Yes, he shouldn’t have agreed to the search. Never ever talk to the police.....EVER.
With this ruling, so what?
Don't you think an excuse could be fashioned that some officer (mistakenly) believed that he was acting in accordance with the requirement to get a warrant, even though he hadn't?
Not surprising at all. It's common in states with lots of farm equipment on the road. The older units -from when most of this code was written- only had one or none at all.
I'd say they had a clue and searched a little more diligently than he thought they would.
The court is correct.
Let's put it in another frame. The cop opened the trunk and found a dead body. Now what do the cops do?? Close the trunk and say "Have a good day sir".
I think the key word here is ‘stupid’...
No, the stop was not consensual.
The decision wasn’t over that, though. It was over making the stop.
No, but the cop pulled him over because of the brake lights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.