FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Why is this even a question?
Sounds like a bunch of black-robed clowns need the Fourth Amendment explained to them with a nail-studded 2 by 4.
That doesn't even go far enough to cover it.
The citizen is assumed to be an innocent minding his own business. The police officer is an agent of the state. More accountability to the officer.
The citizen is not in a law-related profession, the policeman is. More accountability to the professional than to the amateur.
The officer initiates the encounter. The citizen would have merely driven merrily on his way. Greater accountability should attach to the person taking the initiative and initiating contact.
It was a good stop. Why North Carolina has bad laws on the books (Only one working tail light is legal?) is a matter to be resolved, but it was a good and valid reason to stop.
But since it wasn’t a LEGAL stop, then yeah. Drug delaer gets a ‘get out of jail free’ card.
Ignorance of the law will not protect you if you’re caught violating it in the civilian world. It should apply to cops as well. But, I believe in the Rule of Law and not selective enforcement that is so popular to day.
“Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for motorists, and it shouldn’t be an excuse for the police, either,”
I can’t imagine anyone arguing otherwise.
The stop was unlawful. The subsequent search was unlawful.
“Case dismissed, with Prejudice”.
Officers haven’t some mysterious “get out of jail free” card for violating the law.
They are enforcers of the law and once they go beyond that, they are then sanctionable....
If the officer was having a bad, pulled the driver from the vehicle and gave him a hickory stick shampoo, would he be justified saying “I didn’t know it was unlawful?”.
How many times has a cop or judge told a regular peon ‘citizen’: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” - and now they have the gall to ASK this question?
Also, how could a cop in North Carolina, a cop enforcing traffic laws, NOT know that it is legal to operate a car with only one working taillight in that state?
I think the cop is a bald-faced liar.
I am generally pro-law enforcement however, in this case I have to side with the ACLU. If there is no legal probable cause, anything obtained from the stop is poisoned fruit and should not be admissible.
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Now, where have I heard this before, and why is there even any question that this also applies to police officers?
I find it amazing that the most obvious, common-sense situations are up for grabs by the black-robed idiots. Only lawyers can obfuscate common sense with all their jots and tittles, and this is one big reason why this nation is so screwed up, with layers upon layers of legal barnacles encrusting basic laws and common sense.
In 0bama’s Communist Amerika, ignorance=reason.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.