Posted on 12/30/2014 3:52:48 PM PST by lbryce
“The law as it was understood... by whom?”
Everyone. It was not until AFTER the stop that a lower court ruled a car only needed one taillight, and the NC Supreme Court indicated they might not endorse that view had they been asked.
At the time of the stop, it was completely reasonable to believe the law required full working lights. As the NC Supreme Court noted, it might well be true.
However, the search was not based on the lights. It was based on the cop’s suspicions after talking to the parties, and on the owner of the car agreeing to the search.
That doesn’t mean “everyone.” That meant at WORST it was open for debate.
Courts greased the skids for the jackboots here. No doubt about it.
Anyhow, what was the controlling court in the jurisdiction in which this happen. If it was the one that declared only one light was needed, then the higher court had a chance to nix that and failed. Therefore the lower court’s definition of the meaning of the law should prevail and all else follow by consequences.
If we are not under a rule of law we are under a rule of men.
Nonsense.
No. Common sense. Regardless of the various paraphrasings of that quote, it's a foundational principle of our entire American system.
When did you lose sight of that? Only a statist could think that it's OK for the innocent to get f----d as long as we get some guilty ones too...
That's not what the poster said. He said "than one innocent person spend a night in jail." THAT is what I said "nonsense" to. One night in jail vs. freeing 1000 guilty men? Absurd.
That's not what the poster said. He said "than one innocent person spend a night in jail." THAT is what I said "nonsense" to. One night in jail vs. freeing 1000 guilty men? Absurd.
Try that and see how far it gets you. Probably all the way to the county jailor state prison.
“Anyhow, what was the controlling court in the jurisdiction in which this happen.”
Irrelevant.
The lower court did not impose its interpretation until AFTER the stop. Therefor, there was no way any cop could anticipate it and thus it was a completely reasonable stop.
In addition, the code has another passage, not used by the lower court, that says all the lights need to be working. The Supreme Court of NC indicated that if the issue was brought to them, they might interpret the first passage in light of the one that requires all the lights to work.
Again, anyone reading the law could reasonably conclude it was illegal to drive with a broken tail light in North Carolina. It was a valid stop. Therefor, what followed was legal.
I’m amazed at how many Freepers will jump in and express outrage over an 8:1 decision where all the conservatives on the court sided with the majority.
I’m also amazed at how many folks think they can read a few paragraphs in a website that specializes in creating outrage, and just assume the conservatives on the court “...greased the skids for the jackboots here. No doubt about it.”
All this decision affirms is what has existed since the Constitution was written: If a cop reasonably suspects you have broken the law, he can stop you as part of his investigation. If you then tell him he can search you, he can.
Why is it irrelevant?
It’s not like the police are going to be drawn and quartered for the error. However if there is a successful challenge to the law they presumed to enforce, then it should clear the pipeline of consequences. They need to know better next time. Anything less is to have a rule of men and not law.
Such events are rare, which is why we don’t go screaming the sky is on fire as those arguing on your side have done.
I see you now understand the new order comrade. Since an electrical short could cause all the lights to go out, they have a "reasonable" basis to search for any possible wiring fault in the entire vehicle. Anything else they find in the course of said search is, of course, admissable because of the potential for harm.
Your new overlords applaud your acceptance of newspeak.
And also once more you underestimate the power of Washington zeitgeist. It is not for nothing there has appeared the adage that the Supreme Court follows the election returns (which as you know were for Barack Obama twice).
In contradistinction, I set my clock from a heavenly source, the bible. I actually met the president of the Rutherford Institute when it addressed a corporate Christian club in the 90’s. He was a straight gospel man and no evidence has been presented that this has changed.
The bible is clear that sin is not imputed “where there is no law.” That is the authoritative heavenly pattern. Now since not every human attempt to write a law is going to be consistent, that is one reason why we have courts.
The way you are screaming about the dire results of tiny possibilities and about worldly philosophies immediately places your position, and yes, the Court’s, in a highly suspect category. Do you think there is going to be a huge spate of successful challenges to laws now? And police trembling at their boots about it? Well if it really does grow to that extent there is probably a good reason. But it is unlikely to happen.
this can work both ways. If taken to its logical conclusion. Ignorance of the law is an excuse for ANYONE.
(ie Steak is vegan because nobody told me.)
And yes, they can railroad you on a reading of the law that hasn’t even been used before.
Sauce for gander needs to be sauce for goose, or else we have rule of (certain elite) men.
“Better 1000 guilty men go free than one innocent person spend one day in jail.
Nonsense.
“
Then you’ll be happy to volunteer for to go to jail for that innocent person since you think the greater good would be served.
Why am I the only one who visibly remembers this harks back to William Blackstone?
The point is that if you are truly unclear of the legality of a matter, mercy should reign. Again he didn’t pull this out of his rear; it is a biblical trope. It even is supposed to be reflected in the modern standards of civil law (preponderance of evidence) and criminal law (guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).
Few study law, they just comment on it.
“Better 1000 guilty men go free than one innocent person spend one day in jail.”
I’ve heard this argument, and it sounds good on the surface, as most sophistry is intended to.
But, if it were “better” to let 1000 guilty murderers go free than one innocent person be sent to jail,
what of the inevitable victims of one of those guilty set free?
Is his/her life worthless in this philosophy?
Just being a good civics watcher is illuminating.
Go to Blackstone and research the biblical roots of his ideas. We have forgotten that much divine mercy attends our own lives and want to engineer social structures from scratch.
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.