Posted on 12/16/2014 7:46:02 AM PST by Olog-hai
Police can use evidence seized during a traffic stop even if it turns out the officers initially pulled a car over based on a misunderstanding of the law, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The 8-1 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts said that such a stop does not violate the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches.
The ruling came in a North Carolina case in which a police officer pulled over Nicholas Heien’s car because the right brake light was out, although the left one still worked. A consensual search led to the discovery of cocaine in the trunk.
A state appeals court said the stop was impermissible because a quirky state law only requires a car to have one functioning brake light. But the state’s highest court reversed, finding that the officer’s mistaken reading of the law was reasonable.
The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the Fourth Amendment requires police to act reasonably, but not perfectly. Roberts said that just as a police officer’s mistake of fact can justify a traffic stop, a reasonable misunderstanding about the law can also satisfy the Constitution. …
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
If you're an Is;lamest in Tennessee that's exactly what happens...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/11/tenneessee-cop-lets-muslim-drive-dead-child-trunk/?page=all
The search was.
I’ll have to get a hold of the “opinion” and read it.
SOTOMAYOR dissents
Not exactly. He said, for the king's men[ police] ignorance of the law is an excuse. That does not apply to the slaves. If you don't believe it, test it. The slave will be informed very quickly and in no uncertain terms, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
“No, but the cop pulled him over because of the brake lights.”
Yes. One of them was out.
The lower court made its ruling over the brake light, but the higher state court and USSC made their rulings over the search. A bit of a divide here. And it gives the police a bit too much power.
That’s not illegal in NC.
“That’s not illegal in NC.”
And he was not charged for that.
This is one of those things that I find iffy. The part I am particularly troubled by is how a broken light turned into a search of the vehicle and that is the key. It isn’t illegal for a police officer to stop a person to let them know that their tail light is out even if they can’t write a ticket. It could’ve been a trunk not closed etc.
I can understand this ruling if the Officer observed something about the driver during his courtesy stop which led to the search of the vehicle. I certainly wouldn’t want evidence being thrown out in a kidnapping case in a similar situation. Also if the justices had ruled the other way it could have unintended consequences that would affect the ability of officers to setup police check points, handle fugitive searches etc. Maybe officers should be more restricted and should have to get a warrant in these type of situations but if that is the case then the way policing has been done would have to be changed considerably because this kind of thing is very common and has been done this way for years.
What is concerning is; does this portend that the intent of Obamacare is less important than the flawed wording of the law? I wonder how Sotomayor would see that one?
However, this ruling is no real change from the good faith search rule. In fact there is nothing in the opinion to indicate that the consent search itself was being challenged. The challenge was over whether an officer should have initiated the stop in the first place. It’s pretty clear that even though the officer may have been mistaken in the archaic language of NC traffic law, it would have been prudent to stop the car to inform the driver of a malfunctioning tail light. This is a real non issue except for the overtones.
That’s not the point. Look at Roberts’ wording.
There isn’t? “A reasonable misunderstanding of the law”? That can apply now to lots of other things unrelated to this.
G.S. 20-129(d) requires that every motor vehicle, and every trailer or semitrailer attached to a motor vehicle and every vehicle drawn at the end of a combination of vehicles must “have all originally equipped rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order, which lamps shall exhibit a red light plainly visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of 500 feet to the rear of such vehicle.”
This can be seen to include brake lights but since there is another statute particular to brake lights it was ruled to over-ride this one. Confusing laws.
Does that give the USSC leeway over not only making weasel-worded rulings that go after both fourth and tenth amendments?
despite what the Constitutions says, X is acceptable because …
Basically this.
(Specifically, 1:20-1:35.)
Consensual is NOT the keyword in this case; reasonable suspicion is. Consent has absolutely nothing to do with this ruling, the court was not deciding whether the officer could lawfully search, where the heck do you get such an idea from? The court was deciding whether the officer could lawfully stop the person and ask to search in the first place.
Consent to search may overcome the need for probable cause prior to a search, but it does NOT overcome the need for reasonable suspicion to approach a person, which was the focus of this case.
The court was considering whether or not an officer’s mistaken interpretation of the law may pass for the reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. You see, under existing precedent and principle it’s generally unlawful for police to, say for example, go to every doorstep in the city and ask the residents for consent to search or pull over every car in the city with no reason and ask the drivers to submit to “voluntary” searches.
In order to get to the point where consent for a search comes in to play, officers need to be able to articulate a reasonable belief that a crime has occurred. That is what is needed in order to pull over your car, not consent; consent is so entirely immaterial to this case that it’s not funny.
I think the important part of it was “consensual search”. It really doesn’t matter why the cop started talking to you if you consent to a search you have waived your 4th amendment rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.