FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 12/26/2014 7:31:29 PM PST by TurboZamboni
In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens' Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a "reasonable" mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that "ignorance of the law is no excuse," the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The Rutherford Institute had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court's lone dissenter, warned that the court's ruling "means further eroding the Fourth Amendment's protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down."
"By refusing to hold police accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law, the Supreme Court has given government officials a green light to routinely violate the law," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of the award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. "This case may have started out with an improper traffic stop, but where it will end—given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption—is not hard to predict. This ruling is what I would call a one-way, nonrefundable ticket to the police state."
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomoutpost.com ...
I think the supreme court got it wrong on this one. my fear is that it will cause a corruption of the police departments maybe not now but 20 years from now. I was once the target of a police officer that was doing what could be best called community policing. I left my house at one in the morning to walk to the store. I forgot my wallet and was stopped by a cop who proceeded to question me for ten minutes. looking for a reason to take me into the police station after 1o minutes of this I told him I was not answering any more questions the cop got real hostile with me because I was now scared of the cop I allowed him to search me. he did nothing was on me. some other stuff happened but eventually I was allowed to leave. Later on I would find out that the reason all this took place was that the cops wanted to force out of the neighborhood my landlord son who is best described as a low level criminal. I could see that cop lying about a stop being because I had done something illegal and planting something. we have to hold police officers to a higher standard the a criminal.
if cops can ignore the law and scotus can by claiming “reasonableness” in misunderstanding the law, everyone can because this ruling decares the rule of law meaningless.
aka, if cops can misunderstand the law and that’s okay, all citizens can misunderstand the law and it’s okay. either we can all’have the excuse of ignorance, or none can.
Okay - so a reasonable mistake can be a homeowner who blasts a few cops coming through the front door yelling they’re cops and the homeowner doesn’t believe them because it’s happened to others before ....
they are trying to destroy color of law charges against officers who violate rights of citizens.
OBL unilaterally repealed the 4th Amendment on 9-11-01.
How did we come to have laws that can’t reasonably be expected to be understood by the people who are supposed to be enforcing them?
Agree. People should get more details on the case before getting all bent out of shape about it. This is another case of someone trying to get people emotionally upset so they’ll get clicks on their website.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I wonder why everyone’ believes that we have so much resource and time on our hands to waste it on violating the rights of innocent citizens? We have so many criminals to violate that we can’t keep up now.! I’m amazed at your concern of having our time dedicated to attempt to catch you in some secret agent spy stuff when we have so many real criminals that are easy to catch and incarcerate.
Whoops! Gotta go there goes an innocent speeder at 92 mph on our interstate .. Lol
Not sure that's really a fair assessment of this decision. Seems a bit inflammatory to me given what I read of the facts of the case and the reasoning of the decision which appeared to be based on the Constitution (a rarity).
Only the Wise Latina, eh?
Just great! So, the coming police state is justified by our own Supreme Court! We are on our way to anarchy...
Justice by and for the people seems to be a long way from true today. Just remember this ruling in the future.
Not sure that the details can overcome this decision!
Yup. Getting people "emotionally upset" seems to be a major industry these days, on both sides of the aisle.
Well no, that is not true or even accurate.
There must be reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
They cannot pull you over randomly for any invented reason.
The stop must be germain to cause.
“Sir you where weaving in your lane. I am going to have to search your car because I thought I saw you drinking a beer”
Now... with out a dash cam, how do you prove the cop is lying?
To the police, if you are not one of them [police] you are a crook.
This kind of idea from the justice system has been building/growing over many years.
So, if a cop asks to search my car, am I well advised to decline? Am I within my rights to do so? I would never have cocaine or any other such substance, and I would love to say no, but I’m nervous that a cop can do and say anything.
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.