Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mfcorey1

(11,001 posts)
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:41 PM Dec 2014

Supreme Court Says Ignorance Of The Law Is An Excuse — If You’re A Cop

There is one simple concept that law students learn in their very first weeks of criminal law class: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This principle means that when an individual violates the law, it doesn’t matter whether or not they knew what the law said. If it’s a crime, and they are found to have committed the elements of that crime, they are guilty.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the same standard doesn’t necessarily apply to police. In a splintered 8-1 ruling, the court found that cops who pulled over Nicholas Heien for a broken taillight were justified in a subsequent search of Heien’s car, even though North Carolina law says that having just one broken taillight is not a violation of the law.

The ruling means that police did not violate Heien’s rights when they later searched his car and found cocaine, and that the cocaine evidence can’t be suppressed at a later trial. But it also means that the U.S. Supreme Court declined the opportunity to draw a line limiting the scope of police stops, at a time when they are as rampant and racially disproportionate as ever. Instead, police may have considerably more leeway to stop passengers on the road, even in a number of jurisdictions that had previously said cops are not justified in mistakes of law.

The case hinged on a question of “reasonableness.” North Carolina’s law requires that a driver have one working rear taillight, not two. But the law also has some other language that suggests “other” lamps be in “working order.” If there was any ambiguity about this statute, the North Carolina Supreme Court has cleared it up, holding that the “other” lamps language does not refer to tail lights.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/12/15/3603686/supreme-court-if-youre-a-cop-mistakes-about-the-law-wont-stop-your-drug-bust/

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court Says Ignorance Of The Law Is An Excuse — If You’re A Cop (Original Post) mfcorey1 Dec 2014 OP
The big mistake made was for Nicholas Heien to give the cops permission to search the car MiniMe Dec 2014 #1
Indeed. n/t PoliticAverse Dec 2014 #4
Except when 'no' is NOT the correct answer. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #6
Whether or not the stop was justified, the driver should not have consented to the search. Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #2
Rule #1 for the SC: world wide wally Dec 2014 #3
Cops are "special" citizens, with "special" rights and privileges 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #5

MiniMe

(21,714 posts)
1. The big mistake made was for Nicholas Heien to give the cops permission to search the car
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:47 PM
Dec 2014

The correct answer is always to deny permission.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
2. Whether or not the stop was justified, the driver should not have consented to the search.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:48 PM
Dec 2014

You never consent to a search. Ever. Even if you have two broken taillights, that does not give probable cause for a search unless you consent to it.

The key phrases are (that no cop wants to hear):

"No, I do not consent to a search"

"I am choosing to remain silent"

"Am I free to go?"

world wide wally

(21,742 posts)
3. Rule #1 for the SC:
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:49 PM
Dec 2014

If the law is oppressive to average Americans, and does not inconvenience the wealthy, then it is constitutional

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
5. Cops are "special" citizens, with "special" rights and privileges
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:56 PM
Dec 2014

Like being able to maim & murder unarmed citizens in broad daylight for no reason.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court Says Ignora...