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 ...
The ruling was in light of the stop, not the search specifically. Roberts’ wording is what is troubling.
The wording of the decision on top of that is what is more troubling. Roberts wrote that.
ignorance of the law - by cops - is an excuse. not by peons like you or me.
fujr. this guy has been the worst thing to be foisted on this country in a long time given what he’s done.
Never give consent to a warrant less search.
Like taxes
and fines
?
Read my post above yours, consent is immaterial to this case. The reason for the search, and consent to said search, was immaterial. The court was looking at the legality of the stop.
” FWIW, for those of us sitting in suburbs
close to that urban mecca in NE Ohio, we
need police to have this authority.
Otherwise, the chaos could easily spill
over into the suburbs. “
Interesting. Personally, I expect cops to obey the law and Constitution.
“He who would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty or security.’
I’ll add that you will have neither.
“A consensual search...”
Well there’s your problem.
Compare that golden oldie of Roberts to Gruber’s mouthings on the same subject with respect to the CBO. A decision like this actually countenances that, by its wording.
Since the courts allow DUI checkpoints it’s already established that they don’t need a valid reason for a traffic stop.
The tree was not poisoned, the search was consensual.
No, because the ruling is not on the search specifically but the stop. Even worse, the wording made it about both the Fourth Amendment and discretion of a LEO, but can be expanded to ignorance of the law in other cases.
Or interpret the Constitution .....
Maybe so, but they caught Timothy McVeigh through a traffic stop, so sometimes it works out well.
You are absolutely right! Why should a police officer search your car for an equipment malfunction? There is no probable cause, just an overreach of presumed authority.
When asked to search, “Respectfully officer, I do not give consent to search.”
McVeigh had no plates. Different scenario, and take a look at Roberts’ wording in this case.
Assume in the first instance that the person stopped has nothing to hide in the trunk. The person requires the officer to obtain a valid search warrant. Waiting the extra time, a search warrant is issued and delivered to the officer and the search takes place. Now, the direction of this search can take two directions: either there is a valid and truthful search and nothing is found, giving the victim reasonable cause to seek legal action should the search destroy anything in his car; or, the officer or the deliverer plant something they then 'find' in the trunk. The person whose trunk was searched with a valid warrant has been 'set up', but the process has been drawn out over a longer period than just a quick stop and plant, making it more likely that faulty links in the chain of corruption can be uncovered during the extensive legal process to follow.
The monkey wrench arrives in the form of corrupt police/corrupt legal system. With goons like Holder running the unJustice Department, that behavior is rising every day in Amerika. A citizen has only one recourse at this point in the decline of our Republic. Hope to draw the process out so long that the corruption can be discovered and exposed. So NEVER agree to a search that is not instituted by a warrant validly served. Non-corrupt leos will be no threat and if a setup happens due to the delivering agent planting material, the non-corrupt leo will have an eye opener and perhaps be turned in 'Our' favor against the corruption.
“Since the courts allow DUI checkpoints it’s already established that they don’t need a valid reason for a traffic stop.”
Wrong. You’re confusing your misunderstanding for law.
RS is still required for virtually all stops. A single limited exception, under certain circumstances, does not mean that there’s no need in all the other cases of traffic stops.
“... 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.” Ah, and therein lies the clue as to why Roberts was placed at the head of the subSCOTUS. Roberts’ wording contradicts your plain reading of the case. He is giving the leos who do the strong-arm work of the oligarchs the freedom to do anything they deem worthy of their position. But that precedent was established over many rulings ever since the Miranda Act was issued and corroded.
The driver, knowing that he had illegal substance in his trunk took the chance that it would not be found or that the officer would not search since the driver agreed to the search giving the appearance of innocence. The greatest danger in this sort of slide into tyranny is if the driver indeed was innocent yet the search turns up ‘something incriminating.’
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.