And I disagree. You can’t expect your everyday cop to be 100% versant with the entire legal code, especially as large and complex as it is (another issue altogether).
The busted tail light wasn’t a crime, and the defendants are well within their rights to get that charge dismissed, but that doesn’t make the stop itself “not legal”. Frankly, a cop can pull you over for any number of reasons, from as simple as “acting suspiciously” - there’s no need for him to make up a violation just to get a pretext to search a particular car.
To argue that the whole stop was illegal would be to argue that the only reason he pulled the car over was to search it, but he wouldn’t have wanted to do that without some kind of suspicion in the first place. Was there any evidence that this particular car was targeted for a random search?
Which, by the way is something else I should also label: another issue altogether.
Uh, yes, I can. I am required to be conversant with the entirety of the code and all regulations pursuant to it. Why shouldn't agents of the police state?
If they get the law wrong, the fruits of their actions should be considered tainted. If that means the occasional guilty person has to go free, then that's the price we pay for allegedly living in a "free" society.
Perhaps if the state would like to make things easier on it's poor put upon dragoons, it might make some efforts to reduce the size and complexity of the law.
I met a cop who tried to pull over a car for ‘acting suspicious’. IIRC, his suspicion was nothing more than 3 really big guys crammed in the back seat while the front had only the driver.
The car ran. When they finally got it stopped (and searched), they found stolen military grenades and fully automatic weapons in the trunk. All three guys in the back were armed felons.
In spite of my ‘white privilege’, I’ve been pulled over for something that struck the cop as suspicious. We chatted for a few minutes and I went on my way. Maybe I should have cussed at him, and then floored it...what do you think?