General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme 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 doesnt matter whether or not they knew what the law said. If its 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 doesnt 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 Heiens 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 Heiens rights when they later searched his car and found cocaine, and that the cocaine evidence cant 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 Carolinas 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/
MiniMe
(21,714 posts)The correct answer is always to deny permission.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)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)If the law is oppressive to average Americans, and does not inconvenience the wealthy, then it is constitutional
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Like being able to maim & murder unarmed citizens in broad daylight for no reason.