Ping!
SCOTUS ping.
If ignorance of the law is not an excuse for a civilian, then, a law officer should be expected to have just a much knowledge of the law as the civilian. In fact, the law officer is expected to have a lot more knowledge of the laws which he/she is enforcing.
This ridiculous Court? Of course they will have no problem with this.
Otherwise the cop could make up an imaginary law to justify the stop as an excuse to search a vehicle.
If it is legal for the lawmen to break the law then it is legal for their bosses the citizens to break the law.
Police are only trained to shoot dogs ,special Muslim training Sir
I was under the impression the cops could stop you for nothing at all (ie. checkpoints)
So I don’t see why it would be an issue if they stopped you for something they mistakenly thought was against the law, since they could stop you for nothing if they wanted.
Had a cop try to give me a ticket for turning left on red. No one told him in Ga you turn left on red after yielding if you completely stop AND it’s a one way turning on a one way. After radioing in he let me go.
CWII Spark — When those tasked with “enforcing” the law have no requirement to KNOW the law, everything they do is susceptible to questioning as ‘arbitrary’.
I am of the opinion that this comes down to a detention, or a custodial or non-custodial stop. In a non-custodial stop, the citizen is not required to identify, or even engage with the officer in any way. This is no different than being approached by someone on the street.
The next level of stop is detention. I believe that the Terry vs Ohio ruling establishes “reasonable suspicion” as the criteria or the stop and question.
The highest level is a custodial stop. This should require probable cause.
As I see this particular situation, the officer had “reasonable suspicion” that a broken tail light was a traffic violation.
1) I have a hard time believing the sheriff didn’t know that it was legal to drive with one functioning taillight. I could understand confusion over a more obscure traffic law, but you’d think every LEO in NC would know the taillight regulations.
2) Even if we assume the sheriff was sincerely mistaken, I think the court should throw out the search, as if they deem this stop acceptable, some cops (not all or even most but some) around the country will start “forgetting” traffic laws, in order to make random stops without reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause.
I wouldn’t be shocked it the court punts this one, by saying that since the suspects consented to the search, the point about whether the stop was legal or not is moot.
So is this the “Well there oughta be a law...” defense?
road stops bother me....unless they’re looking for a criminal
A major principal of our Common Law based legal system is, that if something is not expressly illegal, it is by default legal.
This being said, in this case there was no justified reasonable suspicion to permit the stop, determined after the fact, so without that, there could be no determination of probable cause, and no arrest. Thus anything found after the initial error should be inadmissible.
AHad a cop follow me off of an interstate and onto the off-ramp. The off-ramp was uphill, and there was a stop sign at the top. I was driving a standard shift vehiucle, so I rolled up to the stop sign, and began to roll backward almost immediately. I pulled out and the cop stopped me for a stop sign violation, even though I tried to explain to him that for me to roll backwards at some point I had to be going exactly zero miles per hour. He didn’t get it, and wrote the ticket. I went to court and the judge actually admonished the prosecution for not throwing the ticket out. He wondered, aloud, what kind of education the police and prosecution had received to not understand a basic law of physics.
What was the support for the cop’s presumption that the vehicle code applied to that car, or the driver of that car, at the time of the stop?
And they expected to be released from their possession of incriminating dope because of a broken tail light??!! After the fact of practically telling the arresting officer of their guilt? B. S. !! Red meat here for the ACLU ambulance-chasers and other law-scorners.
Does the law enforcement officer have to know, to the most minute scrutiny, every letter of the Federal law, State Code, county statutes, village regulations, etc before hindering a citizen's progress for further interrogation? Of course not.
Where is the line drawn? One would expect that a highway patrol officer would be well-informed as to the condition standards to be met for vehicle operation on the public highways under his purview. And that is probably true. It appears that the officer was detaining the vehicle for failure in an area which would have legally and logically caused it to fail the Vehicle Inspection requirements:
The question is whether or not the officer correctly judged the vehicle able to pass the minimum vehicle safety specifications according to state code. Was it equipped with safety equipment operating so as to pass the yearly Vehicle Inspection?
The answer seems to be "No."
Here is the North Carolina standards, which the officer must have been well-acquainted, in this respect:
**********
North Carolina Administrative Code 19A 03D Section .0500
19A NCAC 03D .0533 LIGHTS
. . .
(b) Rear Lights shall conform to the requirements of G.S. 20-129(d). Taillights shall not be approved if:
(1) All original equipped rear lamps or the equivalent are not in working order.
(2) The lens is cracked, discolored, or of a color other than red.
(3) They do not operate properly and project white light on the license plate.
(4) They are not securely mounted.
(c) Stoplights shall conform to the requirements of G.S. 20-129(g). A stoplight shall not be approved if:
(1) The lens is cracked, discolored or of a color other than red or amber. Minor cracks on lenses shall not lead
to disapproval unless water is likely to short out the bulb.
(2) It does not come on when pressure is applied to foot brake.
(3) It is not securely mounted so as to project a light to the rear.
. . .
(etc.)
*********
All these fools had to do was to thank the officer for bringing the taillight failure to their attention, and respectfully decline any further delays with their journey, clam up, and leave.
Jerks.
I’m going to really enjoy reading the oral arguments on this.