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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

IDemo

(16,926 posts)
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 06:27 PM Dec 2014

Supreme Court Says Police Mistakes Can Still Lead to Valid Arrests

Source: NBC

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a police officer's mistaken idea of the law doesn't make an arrest and a search invalid, as long as the officer's understanding of the law was reasonable. The case evolved from a traffic stop in 2009, in which Nicholas Heien was pulled over on Interstate 77 in North Carolina by a county sheriff's deputy because one of his brake lights was out. After getting permission to search the car, the deputy found a baggie of cocaine, and Heien was charged with drug trafficking.

But it turned out North Carolina law did not require cars to have two brake lights. The state law said they must have "a" stop lamp on the rear and elsewhere referred to "the" stop lamp, meaning the deputy was apparently wrong about the law. Heien's lawyer — backed by civil liberties groups — said if a law wasn't being broken, there was no authority to arrest him or conduct a search. But by a 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court said the arrest and the search were valid, even if the officer was wrong about the law. The Fourth Amendment bars "unreasonable" searches and seizures, the court said. "To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials," said the opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The lone dissenter, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said an officer's mistake about the law, no matter how reasonable, "cannot support the individualized suspicion necessary" to justify an arrest. The nation's courts were sharply divided on this issue, though most said if an officer is wrong, the arrest doesn't count.

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-says-police-mistakes-can-still-lead-valid-arrests-n268591



"To be reasonable is not to be perfect" -- Awesome!

39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court Says Police Mistakes Can Still Lead to Valid Arrests (Original Post) IDemo Dec 2014 OP
I wouldnt be to concerned to be honest as they did say that it has to be cstanleytech Dec 2014 #1
Welcome to Faux pas Dec 2014 #2
"After getting permission to search the car" arcane1 Dec 2014 #3
That is VERY sound advice. n/t. 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #5
My first thought as well. n/t hughee99 Dec 2014 #26
Bingo! Sparhawk60 Dec 2014 #27
As a general rule, the police are not there to help you. Adrahil Dec 2014 #29
I've been following this case ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #4
Thanks for your input. SamKnause Dec 2014 #13
I agree. yallerdawg Dec 2014 #20
So.... Adrahil Dec 2014 #31
My reasoning? yallerdawg Dec 2014 #34
So corps are people,,, police dont have to Cryptoad Dec 2014 #6
Many don't know the law Mnpaul Dec 2014 #16
Heck, a lot of lawyers don't know the law. n/t Adrahil Dec 2014 #32
The specific case is fine; the possible precedent is scary as shit Scootaloo Dec 2014 #7
My brother says the same thing. But what about your time? 7962 Dec 2014 #8
They need probable cause to get a warrant missingthebigdog Dec 2014 #14
Indeed, "do you have any drugs or weapons" was a standard question when I lived in Virginia arcane1 Dec 2014 #19
I'd bet they'd just get a dog and say "he alerted" 7962 Dec 2014 #24
Whatever happened to...... Mnpaul Dec 2014 #17
I disagree the court specifically said it had to be reasonable mistake and screwing up and being cstanleytech Dec 2014 #21
My god what is this.... Delver Rootnose Dec 2014 #9
The driver consented to the search evirus Dec 2014 #37
Is it reasonable to expect an officer Deny and Shred Dec 2014 #10
To be honest, not really. Sure they probably know more than the average person but they are cstanleytech Dec 2014 #22
"Medieval Pope says even bad priests are able to perform valid sacraments." Sotomayor dissents. Hekate Dec 2014 #11
Cops are "law enforcement"?, they shoud be called "we really don't HAVE to know the law enforcement" vkkv Dec 2014 #12
The Supreme Court Gave Mr Bush the White House Hockey Dad Dec 2014 #15
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. jtuck004 Dec 2014 #18
Here is the actual opinion: happyslug Dec 2014 #23
Thanks for the link! n/t X_Digger Dec 2014 #25
Underlying law is wrong exboyfil Dec 2014 #28
We are really down the rabbit hole now. bemildred Dec 2014 #30
I am a much bigger fan of expansive fourth amendment rights than most DUers, but Vattel Dec 2014 #33
So by your logic;... jayfish Dec 2014 #35
First of all, you're talking about a traffic violation, COLGATE4 Dec 2014 #36
Well, like I said, I disagree with the decision. But in your example, Vattel Dec 2014 #38
Yes, I got out of a ticket for that exact reason. sir pball Dec 2014 #39

cstanleytech

(26,080 posts)
1. I wouldnt be to concerned to be honest as they did say that it has to be
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 06:35 PM
Dec 2014

reasonable mistake and a minor mistake is one thing if its major one though the evidence will probably be thrown out if its from an illegal search.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
3. "After getting permission to search the car"
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 06:37 PM
Dec 2014

Big problem right there. NEVER give them permission to search, even if you're 100% sure you have nothing on you.

If they have to ask, then "no" is the correct answer.

Sorry, I got slightly off topic

 

Sparhawk60

(359 posts)
27. Bingo!
Tue Dec 16, 2014, 07:31 AM
Dec 2014

Never; never, ever consent to a search. Even if you have nothing to hide, the cop may be having a bad day, may decide to screw you over and plant some thing in your car.

The moment you consent, you open your self to a whole world of hurt and you are dependant of the cop's goodwill and professionalism. A suckers bet if you ask me.


/pass this on to any children you may have.
/ my youngest get stopped several time for driving late at night while young.
/He always very politely declines the officers request.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
29. As a general rule, the police are not there to help you.
Tue Dec 16, 2014, 08:11 AM
Dec 2014

Unless you called them, they are NOT there to help you. Never consent to a search, and only answer the questions you MUST answer.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
4. I've been following this case ...
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 06:40 PM
Dec 2014

and, based on the facts, I have to agree with the holding.

The arrest was because cocaine was found during a consented to search.

Had Heien been arrested (or detained), then, the vehicle searched (without consent or attendant to the inventorying of a vehicle being towed/impounded0, and then, the cocaine was found, both the arrest and the search would have been tossed.

SamKnause

(13,041 posts)
13. Thanks for your input.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:20 PM
Dec 2014

I am not familiar with the case.

I disagree with the judgment.

He should not have been stopped at all.

He was not breaking any law.

He would not have given consent, if he had not been stopped.

That' just my two cents worth.

P.S. I am 61 years old.

This country has too many laws and restrictions.

They can usually be traced back to the war on drugs.

It has devastated millions of lives in this country.

It has been responsible for the deaths of many.

Young, old, guilty, innocent, black or white.

The drug war has negatively effected this country in enormous ways.

I am tired of the two tier justice system.

White collar crime and police brutality are given the green light.

The smallest infraction by the working class and the system is on you like a pit bull.

I disagree vehemently with this ruling.

Have a safe and pleasant evening.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
20. I agree.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:09 PM
Dec 2014

The unjustified stop invalidated everything subsequent.

These guys work for us, don't they? From the police officer right up to the Supreme Court justices.

By God, we got some crappy employees, don't we?

We ought to do something about it.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
31. So....
Tue Dec 16, 2014, 08:19 AM
Dec 2014

What if a kidnapped kid were found in the trunk? Release the kid but let the kidnapped go on their way? Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. If the search were conducted illegally, I'd agree. But it wasn't.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
34. My reasoning?
Tue Dec 16, 2014, 08:51 AM
Dec 2014

Equating some coke to a kidnapped kid doesn't make sense.

If you believe we should be subject to random stops and searched at the discretion of law enforcement, contrary to our Constitutional rights, then we disagree - but you can make a valid argument which I just don't accept.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
6. So corps are people,,, police dont have to
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 06:42 PM
Dec 2014

have any understanding of the laws they hired to enforce. ,,,,,geeez.... people we are fucked!

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
16. Many don't know the law
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:16 PM
Dec 2014

I have informed quite a few. A few know the law quite well. I had one who took my landlady to jail after she locked us out of our apartment without legal paperwork. She was released only after she agreed to allow us back in.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
7. The specific case is fine; the possible precedent is scary as shit
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:01 PM
Dec 2014

As others say, never give the police permission to search your property without a warrant. ever. Even if you have nothing to hide, never do it. This is your right, and is one that should be exercised every time.

However, the precedent and the argument for it, basically removes ANY restrictions on how police officers operate... So long as a cop can shrug and say "I didn't know that" then anything he does is presumed to be okay.

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
8. My brother says the same thing. But what about your time?
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:05 PM
Dec 2014

Dont you think they'll just make you wait till they DO get a warrant? So you sit there for hours waiting? Or does it not work that way?

missingthebigdog

(1,233 posts)
14. They need probable cause to get a warrant
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:41 PM
Dec 2014

Most traffic stops aren't enough for probable cause to search your car. A busted brake light, speeding, or running a red light do not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion that you are concealing contraband.
Police ask if they can search on the off chance that you will consent. I'm always amazed at how often people let them.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
19. Indeed, "do you have any drugs or weapons" was a standard question when I lived in Virginia
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:01 PM
Dec 2014

That's the beauty of the war on (some) drugs: cops are more likely to pull people over because they can ask that question, and X% of people will consent to a search even if they know they have something on them, because it can be scary to say "no" to a cop.

The Drug War started it, and 9/11 finished it.

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
24. I'd bet they'd just get a dog and say "he alerted"
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:03 PM
Dec 2014

and when you question that, they say "you dont know what to look for".
I wouldnt put any of that past them. Just to flaunt the power and piss us off

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
17. Whatever happened to......
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:25 PM
Dec 2014
ignorance of the law is not an excuse

I guess that is only a one way street.

cstanleytech

(26,080 posts)
21. I disagree the court specifically said it had to be reasonable mistake and screwing up and being
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:12 PM
Dec 2014

mistaken about the law over stopping someone because the officer thinks its against the law for a brake light being out is not something to proclaim the sky is falling.
Also I do not believe many police will try abusing it because if there is suddenly a major outbreak of such mistakes it goes past reasonable to planned which means it puts the police departments on the hook to be sued.
For example take the police department that was involved in this case, no officer for their department will probably be able to use the brake light excuse against because if they do then a court can (and should) throw any evidence out because its not reasonable that they should make the same mistake again.

Delver Rootnose

(250 posts)
9. My god what is this....
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:07 PM
Dec 2014

...nation comming to. It used to be any search not based on a legal reason was not considered reasonable. Now they can make it up as they go along and if you don't like it they can say they feel threatened and kill you.

cstanleytech

(26,080 posts)
22. To be honest, not really. Sure they probably know more than the average person but they are
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:16 PM
Dec 2014

still human and they make mistakes.
Hell even lawyers mistakes and they have years of college studying the law.

Hekate

(90,189 posts)
11. "Medieval Pope says even bad priests are able to perform valid sacraments." Sotomayor dissents.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:12 PM
Dec 2014

Ay-yi-yi.

 

vkkv

(3,384 posts)
12. Cops are "law enforcement"?, they shoud be called "we really don't HAVE to know the law enforcement"
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:14 PM
Dec 2014

To be lawfully accurate, that is...

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
18. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:28 PM
Dec 2014

Also known as - "Cut it now. We can measure it later, even if it doesn't work."


Thus, they are allowed to make up law on the spot. Nothing new.

exboyfil

(17,857 posts)
28. Underlying law is wrong
Tue Dec 16, 2014, 07:31 AM
Dec 2014

possession of cocaine should not be illegal, but how about if they came across a murder victim in the search?

Folks are saying consent for the search should not have been given. We hear plenty of stories of what happens in that case (latest one was a driver who was slapped and his car was searched anyway).

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
30. We are really down the rabbit hole now.
Tue Dec 16, 2014, 08:14 AM
Dec 2014

In the realm of shallow humor: "Many true words were spoken through false teeth."

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
33. I am a much bigger fan of expansive fourth amendment rights than most DUers, but
Tue Dec 16, 2014, 08:22 AM
Dec 2014

this case does seem like a pretty close case. The relevant law says that cars must be equipped with "a stop lamp." Thus, one brake light is enough. But the majority thought that a police officer could reasonably think that the law required two working brake lights. I disagree, but the decision is not crazy.

jayfish

(10,035 posts)
35. So by your logic;...
Tue Dec 16, 2014, 10:21 AM
Dec 2014

let's say I'm a driving a long stretch of straight road. At the beginning of my journey the posted speed limit is 75 mph. Somewhere along the drive the posted speed drops to 55 mph but; it's late at night and the sign is obstructed by foliage. You can really come up with any excuse you like. I continue to drive 75 mph, get pulled over and receive a ticket for traveling 75 mph in a 55 mph zone. Wouldn't I be able to successfully argue that it was reasonable for me to think that the speed limit was still 75 mph at the time I was pulled over?

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
36. First of all, you're talking about a traffic violation,
Tue Dec 16, 2014, 10:38 AM
Dec 2014

not a supposedly unconstitutional search and seizure. Secondly, if you chose to contest the ticket you would be able to present your evidence showing that the 55 MPH speed limit sign was obsured. Not really the same thing.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
38. Well, like I said, I disagree with the decision. But in your example,
Tue Dec 16, 2014, 01:48 PM
Dec 2014

it does seem pretty reasonable for you to believe the speed limit was 75.

sir pball

(4,726 posts)
39. Yes, I got out of a ticket for that exact reason.
Wed Dec 17, 2014, 12:03 PM
Dec 2014

Well, it was daytime, but at any rate...I got dinged and immediately drove back to snap a picture of the hidden sign. Prosecutor took a look at the picture and let me off no problem.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court Says Police...