[Above My Pay Grade]

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.

[Clump]

The court isn’t going to let consent carry the day here.
If they did then 4th Amendment jurisprudence would be turned on its head.
You can’t get valid consent after an invalid detention.

[PapaBear3625]

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.

One sure way to put a stop to that, real fast, is that every time a cop makes a stop for something that isn't against the law, he has to go to a one day refresher course on traffic laws, on his own time, at his own expense.