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.
“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.