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 ...
“What happened to the old “fruit of the poisoned tree?”
Nowadays, the ground is poisoned too. The entire system is poisoned.
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.
Why would he consent to a search, knowing that he was "dirty"? And what caused the cop to ask permission to search the vehicle?
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?
If she said, “No, you cannot search my car,” how can the police get a search warrant?
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.
Are you saying that you should consent to a search of your car?
Completely up to you. If youre too dull to keep your mouth shut then keep talking and have fun w/ the outcome.
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.
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.
Is what we call the nose of the camel in the tent.
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.
‘Please, sir, can I have another?’
Illegal stop.
And the problem is Justice Robert’s wording.
Illegal stop for a broken taillight? This is very confusing.
So an illegal stop led to the consent and discovery. That should nullify anything found.
Am I getting it now?
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”.
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.”
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.