Sonia Sotomayor the only one that got it right?!?!?!?!
Better 1000 guilty men go free than one innocent person spend one day in jail.
So normal citizens can now plead ignorance of the law? No?
The Wise Latina is on your side.
All others, no.
Free Thought Project is a commie group aligned with the Ferguson protestors.
Why you post commie propaganda?
What’s to stop any other ‘reasonable’ violations of our rights?
And what the hell use is having a right if it can be so ‘reasonably’ violated?
I’m pretty sure this was brought up a few days back on FR. There were some freepers that weighed in about it and dispelled the notion taken out of context. It wasn’t an overly popular thread but some good facts brought out. Maybe someone else recalls?
This bogus info has been posted before:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3241173/posts
When the “Wise Latina” is the ONLY one who votes for X, it is a safe bet X is stupid/unconstitutional.
See this from one of the the previous threads:
“It was impossible for the cop to “know the law”. After this arrest, the defendant argued the wording of the law only required one light to work. In spite of another sentence indicating both needed to work, the court ruled - AFTER the arrest and for the first time - that the wording only required one working light.
Since this ruling changed the accepted meaning, and came about only after the stop went to trial, there was no way any cop or any lawyer could have known.
The state supreme court was not asked the question, so it remains a lower court ruling that only one light is needed. The state supreme court pointed out the other sentence indicating two were needed, but since they were not specifically asked they made no ruling. However, in reading the state supreme court’s decision, it seems likely that if it DOES go to them, they will overturn the lower court and rule both lights need to work.
Since there was no way a cop could have known, in advance, that a lower court would rule only one light was needed, and since the state supreme court seems to doubt the lower court was right, it is ridiculous to expect a cop to predict in advance how a court will interpret the law.
That is why the US Supreme Court ruled as it did. If cops could only stop people based on the outcome of FUTURE CASES, no one would ever be stopped. The legal principle is that the cop can be mistaken about the law and still arrest you. That doesn’t violate your rights, because the COURTS will determine guilt or innocence. All the cop needs to make the arrest is a reasonable suspicion that the law has been broken...And no cop can be required to know how a future court will interpret the law.”
Whatever happened to, “Ignorance of the law is no defense”? I guess that only applies to civilians.
Hmm, what if I “reasonably” believe that the police officer trying to perform the search is a jackboot serving a petty tyrant?
Does that justify me in “asserting my rights”, if you know what I mean?
What is it about the current crop of jurists that seems time and again to interpret the law in a manner driven by some unseen force, where the separation between the Executive Branch, Legislative and Judicial seem non-existent?
O’Connor admitted as much in Attwater v Lago Vista PD in 2001 or thereabouts. She agreed with the plaintiff but the implications of ruling in her favor would mean such massive disruption of current and past cases nationwide that it wasn’t worth it.
The idiot black robes started the first Civil War with their stupid Dred Scott ruling.
This time they hang.
When are going to call it like it is. This ruling is terrorism. Black robed terrorisim plain and simple. The jurists that ruled in favor of the state on this one are TERRORISTS! The Constitution is clear.
The concept applied as controlling -- the reasonableness of the officer's suspicion of a violation of law as the basis for a traffic stop -- is well-established in the case law and is drawn directly from the Fourth Amendment's text prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.
As for the "ignorance of the law" argument, the Court concluded that:
Finally, Heien and amici point to the well-known maxim, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” and contend that it is fundamentally unfair to let police officers get away with mistakes of law when the citizenry is accorded no such leeway. Though this argument has a certain rhetorical appeal, it misconceives the implication of the maxim. The true symmetry is this: Just as an individual generally cannot escape criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law, so too the government cannot impose criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law. If the law required two working brake lights, Heien could not escape a ticket by claiming he reasonably thought he needed only one; if the law required only one, Sergeant Darisse could not issue a valid ticket by claiming he reasonably thought drivers needed two. But just because mistakes of law cannot justify either the imposition or the avoidance of criminal liability, it does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop. And Heien is not appealing a brake-light ticket; he is appealing a cocaine-trafficking conviction as to which there is no asserted mistake of fact or law.
Ignorance of law is the most misunderstood concept in jurisprudence. The LAW referred to is NOT statute law, it is the COMMON LAW. The proper phraseology is .. “Ignorance of the common law is no excuse.”
if they have to ask to search you, they don’t have probable cause. do not say yes to a search. let them bitch about warrants and try to scare you. don’t fall for it. not consenting, not wanting a search, is not giving them probable cause. and if they get you out of the car, lock it.
The 4th amendment wasn’t written to protect the guilty, it was written to protect the innocent. It was written to prevent authorities from INTENTIONALLY forcing innocent people to incriminate themselves. I agree with the majority on this one. If a cop inadvertently finds evidence of a crime, it should be allowed as evidence.
Overly dramatic headlines.
Driver gets pulled over for incorrect reason.
Driver is asked if it is ok to search the car.
Driver consents to the search
Police find evidence.
Police use the evidence to make the arrest.
Driver attempts to get out of the conviction by pointing out a minor technical difference between two statutes in the state ... and fails.
As always, the headline writers do not care one whit about the story that follows. “reasonable mistake about the law” and “ignorance of the law” are two very different things.
Not too long ago there was a thread on a article from a police officer who basically said that if the police stop you just shut up and do what you’re told. If you think the stop was illegal then you an sort it out later. Obviously the ‘sort it out later’ part of that advice just went out the window.