“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.
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.