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 ...
Look what resulted at the USSC though. It can be interpreted as saying that the police can ignore the law so long as they feel something is “reasonable” in their discretion.
That appears to be what they are saying. Now all an officer has to be is ‘ignorant’, and they can do what they want.
I can’t believe Scalia came down where he did on this.
I'd like to search your car and all your bodily orifices."
More like a cop in the bushes with a .22 plinking them out, but yeah.
“Why would he consent to a search, knowing that he was “dirty”? “
One wonders. He was a passenger in his car. Guessing that he didn’t know.
It doesn’t matter - he was stopped and that’s how they caught him.
It matters quite a bit. Go back and take a look at the can of worms Roberts opened up. It’s all about ignorance of the law being OK as long as you’re in “authority”. Such an opinion goes way beyond the circumstances here.
I understand perfectly what you are saying and I was only commenting on stopping someone for a traffic violation. I wonder if we -the peons - can now claim ignorance of the law as a viable defense? Hmmm, probably not -
One set of rules for big government and union thugs, another for citizens.
May you be their next victim.
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?Yes. That's exactly why there are so many IQ<93 cops out there....
We don’t have any idea how this would have turned out if permission had been refused. The ruling doesn’t apply to such cases, although state attorneys will attempt to argue that it does (always try to stretch the law, maybe you’ll be lucky).
While a little strident in tone, your comment makes a good point. Very good, in fact.
That said, if the person had not consented to the search, he would not be in the position he is in, either. That’s the point we were making.
Again, though, as you stated, the stop was improper, so therefore the search was improper. At least that is the way it used to be. Sigh.
PS Who in their right mind consents to a search with a kilo of cocaine in their car? For that matter, who in their right mind consents to a search period?
The take at Firedoglake:
Why did the Supreme Court grant certiorari in this case? They had an agenda. They have been looking for a case with a suitably appropriate set of facts upon which they could base their decision carving out an exception to the reasonable-suspicion rule and the exclusionary rule, which is a judicial remedy that excludes evidence seized in violation of that rule (and others). They wanted the Heien case from NC because it only applies in NC. The federal courts and all other state courts are not bound by it. They accepted review because they wanted to establish that rule for all courts. I believe this new rule that exempts operation of the exclusionary rule for reasonable mistakes by police regarding what is unlawful is absolutely awful. Only time will tell what constitutes reasonable ignorance or stupidity. Nothing good will come of this bizarre decision.
The take at Firedoglake:
Why did the Supreme Court grant certiorari in this case? They had an agenda. They have been looking for a case with a suitably appropriate set of facts upon which they could base their decision carving out an exception to the reasonable-suspicion rule and the exclusionary rule, which is a judicial remedy that excludes evidence seized in violation of that rule (and others). They wanted the Heien case from NC because it only applies in NC. The federal courts and all other state courts are not bound by it. They accepted review because they wanted to establish that rule for all courts. I believe this new rule that exempts operation of the exclusionary rule for reasonable mistakes by police regarding what is unlawful is absolutely awful. Only time will tell what constitutes reasonable ignorance or stupidity. Nothing good will come of this bizarre decision.
That was back when we were under the Constitution.
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.