Skip to comments.
[Supreme] Court: Traffic stop OK despite mistake of law (Roberts v. Fourth Amendment 8-1)
Associated Press ^
| Dec. 15, 2014 12:12 PM EST
| Sam Hananel
Posted on 12/16/2014 7:46:02 AM PST by Olog-hai
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-97 next last
To: Olog-hai
Cop provided a reason to pull over Heien's car (Even though one working light was legal in the State) then Heien waived her Fourth Amendment rights in consenting to a search.
If Heien did not consent to a search, she probably would have won her appeal of getting ticketed for the taillight (In fact that fine was probably waived anyway by the lower State appeals court, and upheld by the State Supreme Court, lol).
Let this be a lesson to everyone: Know your Constitutional protections.
61
posted on
12/16/2014 9:37:57 AM PST
by
rollo tomasi
(Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
To: BenLurkin
“What happened to the old fruit of the poisoned tree?
Nowadays, the ground is poisoned too. The entire system is poisoned.
62
posted on
12/16/2014 9:37:57 AM PST
by
The Antiyuppie
("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
To: rollo tomasi
Take another look at Roberts’ wording. That opens the door to other “reasons” to be ignorant of the law, especially by other people in power.
If anyone ought to be aware of the law, and keenly, it is a law enforcement officer. Otherwise such are promulgating the rule of man.
63
posted on
12/16/2014 9:40:37 AM PST
by
Olog-hai
To: TexasGator
He was charged with cocaine possession after he consented to a search of his car.Why would he consent to a search, knowing that he was "dirty"? And what caused the cop to ask permission to search the vehicle?
64
posted on
12/16/2014 9:55:31 AM PST
by
JimRed
(Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
To: 556x45
Never ever talk to the police.....EVER.I play B'Ball with a couple of cops from time to time, and sometimes we have a pint or two and talk afterwards. Should I stop talking?
65
posted on
12/16/2014 9:58:08 AM PST
by
JimRed
(Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
To: KarlInOhio
If she said, “No, you cannot search my car,” how can the police get a search warrant?
To: JimRed
Searching one’s vehicle is standard police procedure anytime a police officer has an interaction between said officer and vehicle occupant. No matter what the interaction is. In other words, they know you are dirty and are looking for something to hang you.
67
posted on
12/16/2014 10:00:36 AM PST
by
sport
To: sport
Are you saying that you should consent to a search of your car?
To: JimRed
Completely up to you. If youre too dull to keep your mouth shut then keep talking and have fun w/ the outcome.
69
posted on
12/16/2014 10:03:13 AM PST
by
556x45
To: nikos1121
No, I am not. One of the ploys they use is, “for my safety”. One way to counteract this is quickly roll your windows up and step outside and lock your door. you have to be quick to do that though.
70
posted on
12/16/2014 10:05:11 AM PST
by
sport
To: Olog-hai
Sorry, North Carolina does not provide a good-faith exception concerning State law - - State v. Carter, 322
N. C. 709, 721724, 370 S. E. 2d 553, 560562 (1988). This was one reason why the Court was flippant about the original stop.
71
posted on
12/16/2014 10:08:12 AM PST
by
rollo tomasi
(Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
To: MHGinTN
Request permission to document the search with your cell phone video camera. Point out to the cop that it’s for his protection, so you can’t claim any misdeeds on his part.
72
posted on
12/16/2014 10:09:49 AM PST
by
JimRed
(Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
To: jameslalor
A single limited exception, under certain circumstances, Is what we call the nose of the camel in the tent.
73
posted on
12/16/2014 10:14:59 AM PST
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: piytar
The disagreement with the search stopped at Consensual. I don't understand
how this was considered and illegal search by the police.
Also, the police are allowed to intimidate anybody any way they please if they
suspect wrongdoing, or want information. And they can lie without accountability
which is also allowed by the courts, in the court to prosecute. Something
everybody should remember when dealing with law enforcement.
74
posted on
12/16/2014 10:16:11 AM PST
by
MaxMax
(Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
To: JimRed
‘Please, sir, can I have another?’
75
posted on
12/16/2014 10:17:53 AM PST
by
MHGinTN
To: MaxMax
Illegal stop.
And the problem is Justice Robert’s wording.
76
posted on
12/16/2014 10:25:19 AM PST
by
Olog-hai
To: Olog-hai
Illegal stop for a broken taillight? This is very confusing.
77
posted on
12/16/2014 11:38:57 AM PST
by
MaxMax
(Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
To: Olog-hai
Oh, NC law says only one light is required. But can they still pull someone over for
having one of those brake lights out?
So an illegal stop led to the consent and discovery. That should nullify anything found.
Am I getting it now?
78
posted on
12/16/2014 11:40:34 AM PST
by
MaxMax
(Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
To: MaxMax
That’s what the lower NC court decided, but the NC appeals court overturned it.
It’s way more worrisome what Roberts has turned this into, though. It can be interpreted as saying that it’s all right for police to be ignorant of the law so long as the rule of man thus exercised is “reasonable”.
79
posted on
12/16/2014 11:45:52 AM PST
by
Olog-hai
To: Olog-hai
The only moral here is don’t consent to a search, and call your lawyer. His lawyer would have voided the stop and his client would have driven off, cocaine intact.
Even if they’d have arrested him for some reason other than the tail light, they’d have needed a warrant to search the car, and they didn’t have PC.
I can’t believe this made it to the Supreme Court. It sure looks like they are saying, “We can make it up as we go along.”
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-97 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson