Posted on 12/30/2014 3:52:48 PM PST by lbryce
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. The Rutherford Institute
4th amendment gone
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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thefreethoughtproject.com ...
What is it about the current crop of jurists that seems time and again to interpret the law in a manner driven by some unseen force, where the separation between the Executive Branch, Legislative and Judicial seem non-existent?
O’Connor admitted as much in Attwater v Lago Vista PD in 2001 or thereabouts. She agreed with the plaintiff but the implications of ruling in her favor would mean such massive disruption of current and past cases nationwide that it wasn’t worth it.
Right after you hit “record” on your smart device and entirely through the encounter.
The idiot black robes started the first Civil War with their stupid Dred Scott ruling.
This time they hang.
When are going to call it like it is. This ruling is terrorism. Black robed terrorisim plain and simple. The jurists that ruled in favor of the state on this one are TERRORISTS! The Constitution is clear.
The concept applied as controlling -- the reasonableness of the officer's suspicion of a violation of law as the basis for a traffic stop -- is well-established in the case law and is drawn directly from the Fourth Amendment's text prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.
As for the "ignorance of the law" argument, the Court concluded that:
Finally, Heien and amici point to the well-known maxim, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” and contend that it is fundamentally unfair to let police officers get away with mistakes of law when the citizenry is accorded no such leeway. Though this argument has a certain rhetorical appeal, it misconceives the implication of the maxim. The true symmetry is this: Just as an individual generally cannot escape criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law, so too the government cannot impose criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law. If the law required two working brake lights, Heien could not escape a ticket by claiming he reasonably thought he needed only one; if the law required only one, Sergeant Darisse could not issue a valid ticket by claiming he reasonably thought drivers needed two. But just because mistakes of law cannot justify either the imposition or the avoidance of criminal liability, it does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop. And Heien is not appealing a brake-light ticket; he is appealing a cocaine-trafficking conviction as to which there is no asserted mistake of fact or law.
It’s also an issue with Rutherford.
Ignorance of law is the most misunderstood concept in jurisprudence. The LAW referred to is NOT statute law, it is the COMMON LAW. The proper phraseology is .. “Ignorance of the common law is no excuse.”
if they have to ask to search you, they don’t have probable cause. do not say yes to a search. let them bitch about warrants and try to scare you. don’t fall for it. not consenting, not wanting a search, is not giving them probable cause. and if they get you out of the car, lock it.
The 4th amendment wasn’t written to protect the guilty, it was written to protect the innocent. It was written to prevent authorities from INTENTIONALLY forcing innocent people to incriminate themselves. I agree with the majority on this one. If a cop inadvertently finds evidence of a crime, it should be allowed as evidence.
If the person gives permission for a search, then the cops can search. In this case:
“A records check revealed no problems with the documents, and Darisse gave Vasquez the warning ticket. But Darisse had become suspicious during the course of the stop—Vasquez appeared nervous, Heien remained lying down the entire time, and the two gave inconsistent answers about their destination. Darisse asked Vasquez if he would be willing to answer some questions. Vasquez assented, and Darisse asked whether the men were transporting various types of contraband. Told no, Darisse asked whether he could search the Escort. Vasquez said he had no objection, but told Darisse he should ask Heien, because Heien owned the car. Heien gave his consent, and Darisse, aided by a fellow officer who had since arrived, began a thorough search of the vehicle.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf
Overly dramatic headlines.
Driver gets pulled over for incorrect reason.
Driver is asked if it is ok to search the car.
Driver consents to the search
Police find evidence.
Police use the evidence to make the arrest.
Driver attempts to get out of the conviction by pointing out a minor technical difference between two statutes in the state ... and fails.
And .... your recorder will suddenly disappear after arrest. Some how you’d have to figure a way to upload it at the same time it’s being recorded .....
Nonsense.
She had no way of winning if she had drugs in the car. Deny permission and cops will detain you until the drug sniffing dog arrives, when the dog "alerts" to drugs, then the cops have probable cause.
Well, by that logic, even if all brake lights are working, if all were to go out, the car becomes a hazard.
“Some how you’d have to figure a way to upload it at the same time it’s being recorded .....”
It can be done.
“The old court position is that any invalid law is void from the word go. So this is a change.”
They were stopped for a valid reason, using the law as it was understood at the time of the stop. You cannot hold a cop responsible for anticipating a future court decision about the wording in a law.
“Well, what is more distressing is that cops can use a “busted tail light” being a crime as an excuse for any search in the first place.”
A busted light IS a valid reason to stop in many states, and was in NC at the time of the stop. The search was asked for due to suspicious behavior. The accused gave consent, as any citizen has the right to do.
Post #45 from Rockingham explains it well, from the ruling.
The law as it was understood... by whom?
That’s a problem when you hand it to executives who quibble about what “is” is.
Will or won’t courts be a backstop to what is legal? In this case the USSC whiffed.
The extremely honored William Blackstone differed.
Ah, well that makes more sense. The idiot brought it on himself then by surrendering his rights.
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.