General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court Rules Police Can Violate 4th Amendment.....
If They Are Ignorant of the LawI find this recent ruling scary. The vote was 8-1 with Justice Sotomayor dissenting.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The Rutherford Institute had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s lone dissenter, warned that the court’s ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.”
More...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-27/supreme-court-rules-police-can-violate-4th-amendment-if-they-are-ignorant-law
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dawg
(10,624 posts)These are your rights:
1. You have the right to free speech.
2. You have the right to food money (in the U.K. I guess).
3. You have the right not to be killed ... unless it's done by a policeman.
unblock
(52,261 posts)
Heywood J
(2,515 posts)
dickthegrouch
(3,176 posts)all of them have bastardized in one way or another by the hideously misnamed supreme court
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Good for them for standing up for due process of law.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)So while the traffic stop itself was incorrect under North Carolina law, the police officer did not break the law by searching the car.
I strongly suspect that if the driver had NOT given permission for the search, the case would have been tossed out of court at a much lower level as a traffic stop for a broken tailight is not sufficent probable cause by itself to search a car.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)officer's part is being upheld! I think that's the pertinent point.
BTW: I can't imagine telling an officer, in this day and age, they couldn't search.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)he would have gotten a ticket and nothing more. This was a weak case and I am surprised it made it to the Supreme Court. The officer made a simple mistake in the interpretation of a minor motor vehicle law.
" I can't imagine telling an officer, in this day and age, they couldn't search." your unwillingness to assert your rights is on you. Personally I'm extremely unlikely to consent to a search of my motor vehicle or home.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)While I have consented to a search of my vehicle, it was only because I was in Texas, and on a tight travel schedule, and I knew I wasn't holding anything unlawful ... including the 3 firearms that I had in the vehicle (which I disclosed at the beginning of the stop).
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)and in that specific case, my willingness to be cooperative probably got me out of a reckless driving charge.
I was driving home very late one night and was traveling a good 30-40 mph above the posted speed limit when I got pulled over. While I had not had anything to drink that night, one of the people at the party I was at had spelled beer all over me so I smelled like a brewery. The police officer asked if he could search my car and I said yes and after finding nothing and passing the field sobriety test he gave me a ticket for speeding instead of the reckless driving charge I deserved.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have never, nor will I, ever consent to a field sobriety test. It is completely subjective.
I will, and have, told officer that I will blow, or if I had been drinking, submit to a blood draw (at a medical facility ... that buys me another hour or two to get the numbers down).
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I'm not sure I would do the same thing again, but I do firmly believe that my overall attitude and cooperation, in this specific case, got me out of being arrested and charged with reckless driving.
Quackers
(2,256 posts)I generally agree with your post but when you admit to trying to buy a few hours to get your alcohol numbers down, that's not good. I've lost family to drunk drivers and am very adamant about it. Please don't drink and drive.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)or thought to be advocating, drinking and driving.
Quackers
(2,256 posts)
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)I know this because it has happened to me, personally. I've never been arrested or convicted for doing anything remotely criminal, but I have been stopped and I have been searched despite my exercising my rights. I'm a white, middle class guy who chooses to live in a poor, brown neighborhood, hence my occasional police run-ins.
To be fair, I have also had the police respect my right to say no to a search, and in New Mexico they actually had me sign a form, even though their drug dog gave them probable cause (it was a moving van; the dog eventually identified on the rented moving blankets).
I asked (to a cop acquaintance at work) why more police departments didn't use the form and just eliminate all disputes later, and he flat out told me that it would make it difficult for the police to lie, too.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)he waived his 4th Amendment rights.
As for the rest, it is subjective and based on each individual's interactions with law enforcement. Mine have generally been positive, but are all related to motor vehicle violations and the like.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)search nor consent but 'probable cause' is required. So the driver didn't really waive his rights...actually, now that I've searched this topic a bit more, Helen may have known the officers could legally search with probable cause.
I have to wonder what connection there was between being erronesously pulled over for a minor offense of a tail light and the conclusion that a search was needed? In any case, the search yielded materials to be used against the driver for what I suppose is a felony. I still think it's scary and walking a thin line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception
snip..
More....
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The cynic in me supposes not.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Maybe the officer had probable cause or maybe he was using the "nothing ventured, nothing gained" approach and figured it couldn't hurt to ask.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)There are lots of ways to get around that. I wish we lived in a country where our rights were sacred but as you can see, even the so-called liberals on the Court failed us.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The driver waived his rights under the 4th Amendment when he consented to the search. Period.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Those arguing otherwise, know little about the law; but, have a great distrust of everything establishment.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I don't think that's a fair statement. We have established that there are crazy-assed police officers out there. And it's easy for them to come up with justification to search a car. And they never or rarely get in trouble for weak-assed reasons to search a car. They get away with killing people, who's to hold them accountable for fudging on searching a car.
"The driver waived his rights under the 4th Amendment when he consented to the search. Period." I am not disagreeing with that.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)does not mean all police behave the same way. The burden is on you that in this specific case the police officer would have searched the car without the driver's consent.
The threshold for a search is probable cause which the police officer will have to explain to a jury in a trial and it is up to the defense attorney to counter the police officer's explanation for probable cause and it is up to the jury to determine whether the police officer was credible.
If you don't like how things work, become a politician, a lawyer or a police officer and start changing the system, because complaining on an internet discussion board isn't going to change anything.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)You are posting as if you never heard of any of it.
There are six exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Defense lawyers challenge searches in hundreds of cases that have gone to the SCOTUS. So many of them are based on consent which the person never had to give in the first place.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)A lot of these start with "Do you have anything I should know about?" Just say "I don't answer questions." You're advocating rolling over in fear.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)one's rights are. It's quite another for people to exercise those rights in this situation. How many people know they can refuse a search?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It should be a basic training in civics. If they don't do it in school, parents should teach it. We do not have to be helpless.
Boreal
(725 posts)I've heard there's a difference. Lawful as in strict constructionist constitutional and legal as in we live in a Nazi police state that has legalized warrantless searches, even of people's homes (where the homeowners sometimes get murdered). Dunno about the lawful v legal but it fits the reality. There are shitloads of videos on Youtube with confrontations between cops and people asserting their rights. A simple interpretation of the 4th amendment AFFIRMATION (not a granting of rights) would tell me that under no circumstances does anyone have the right to search ANYTHING of mine or my person without "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" but, we don't live in THAT country anymore, do we? If we go by what's legal we practically need to be a lawyer and familiar with every anti liberty court interpretation and law that's been passed to gut our rights. Then you have the fact that cops don't care of know what the law or constitution says, anyway, and they might just kill you, arrest you, strip search and fondle you or beat the shit out of you for asserting your rights - whatever they are because when it comes to "legal" I honestly don't know. I know what the Founding Fathers had to say about it but, hey, that's history.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That is what the courts are for. However, it is straightforward. They have to have a warrant unless one of the exceptions applies. The first exception is consent, which people give because they are intimidated. They should not be. Have the gumption to say no. And ask them if you are being detained. If not, they can give you the ticket. You don't have to answer their questions. People just do that and they don't have to.
Sure there will be litigation about what constitutes consent, plain sight, etc. That is because the world is a messy place and not everything is black and white.
Boreal
(725 posts)that have been enacted to gut our unalienable 4th am. confirmed rights because I have no idea what they are. Oh, and then there's the "constitution free zone" - anywhere within 100 miles of the border of the UNITED STATES. No rights land. You see, the Founders were clear and our rights absolute but that all began to be eroded before the ink was dry. We're now in Kafka territory and this not a free country nor one where the We the People are the sovereigns so it's very hard to be certain about what to do when encountering the enforcement thugs of the establishment. Cling to those Jeffersonian principals, submit to the perversions of courts and laws, or try and figure out if the goon who has stopped you would just as soon kill you for questioning his authority.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's like voting. Bother to know about the law of the country. But you don't have to know the exceptions. Don't consent. If they claim an exception and it doesn't hold up in court, then the evidence will be excluded. But at least learn that you do not HAVE to consent, no matter what they say. Make them prove the case. It's actually not that easy for them.
Boreal
(725 posts)Of course, I understand "do not consent". I'm saying that being right doesn't make much difference if you've got some roided up freak who might shoot you. Then, there are the court decisions about probable cause which are most like all bullshit. Can one "legally" refuse a search in that instance? No warrant, just some cop claiming he's looking for drugs and has some fabricated reason he or she suspects you. Can you refuse that? I don't know. I'm of the opinion (which counts for shit) that the 4th is absolute and, no, you or your property cannot be searched without a warrant and that any and all court decisions to the contrary are in violation of the constitution. Say I refuse a search and get arrested. I can't afford a lawyer or bail! A lot of people can't.
Anyway, I AM with you. Say no and stand up for your rights. All I'm saying is that we have a power structure, the establishment, that has said, "Fuck your rights" so matter how right you are, you may lose, get arrested, get shot or beaten.
If I didn't have a house full of dogs I would leave the US. That's how far gone I think things are.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and the probable cause law is not "bullshit." It defines when a warrant is issuable. Even if they have a warrant, that can be challenged. There is no reason to consent. Anyone who consents because of resided up freaks who might shoot you could tell their lawyer about that - in fact I would not be surprised if there was already a case on that. There are many cases on the subject of consent and whether it was valid.
The cop as a raided up raged freak who might shoot you is starting to sound like a stereotype. I guess he's white too? There are cops of other races and female cops. And not every white cop is enraged at every citizen he speaks to.
Boreal
(725 posts)Most likely but not necessarily. Just watched a video here of a female cop, in Warren MI, putting a female prisoner in a restraining chair and hacking off all of her hair. Women can be psychos, too.
While I'm sure some cops are racists, I do not see the police state as a race issue and I've said that many times here. Making it about race is not only wrong (and often politically motivated) but it diverts people's attention from the the real issue and negates the murders of others who are not black.
BTW, that's 'roided up as in steroids.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)... I hadn't been asked . It was at ohare airport . Me and my bro were hayseed touritas and we prked in the parking lot, walked around a bit and watched a few jets taking off . When we drove out of the garage the toll gate gave us a funny look and as we were pulling away from the gate a cop care pulled us over. They must have been watching ys on cctv.
We were asked to get out of the car and while we were talking to the onem the other opened the truck door and started to rumage through the junk behind the seat. When I looked back and saw what was going on, i told the officers that i did not consent to the search. Of course they got angry , hostile and thretned to bring us in. They completed the search by throughing everthing in the truck onto the pavement. Then they left since they didn't find anything .
They were looking for stolen cb radios. Which gives yo an idea how long ago this was.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Never consent to a search. If they don't have a warrant, they can't search. Consent is an exception to the warrant requirement. It's easy. Say no.
If they come to the house, you take your key and close the front door behind you, stepping outside. Tell them they don't have consent to search and you won't let them in without a warrant.
As citizens we can take some responsibility for knowing our rights and standing up for them. Don't consent, no matter what they say. They know they can't search without a warrant and without consent. That's why they try to get consent.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)with a camera pointed at them.
You actually lose some rights by stepping outside.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Cops know all the signs of being high on each drug, too.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)pulling you over for, it's their job.
Second, why are they asking to search a car if all they have is a busted light?
Third, I have seen too many instances of them telling people that by not consenting to a search they are guilty of something so we will get the drug dogs out.... It still is stupid to let them, even if you are completely innocent.
treestar
(82,383 posts)People will assume that if they consent to the search, the cops will find nothing because they are innocent.
unblock
(52,261 posts)did the driver not know about the drugs?
think they wouldn't be found?
think they'd get in trouble for refusing a search?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)but this isn't the first time I've heard of people agreeing to a search even thought they know they have something in the car that will get them arrested.
treestar
(82,383 posts)this is one of the travesties of American citizenry. Anyone who thinks they'd get into trouble for not consenting to a search doesn't have basic knowledge of his/her rights. It's another appalling area of ignorance. Everyone should know that. another failure of civics in our schools.
unblock
(52,261 posts)even when it's not drawn or even visible, people know the cop is carrying.
it takes a lot of courage to say no to someone who has a gun.
a few stories in the news about cops shooting people while misjudging the situation doesn't exactly put people at ease about sticking up for themselves at a traffic stop.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We have our Second Amendment rights, the cops know that too, so we should not let that bother us. We can't have it both ways - be afraid of guns when we have the right to our own. For all the cop knows, we're carrying. There are cases out there of cops getting killed or shot at when they made a traffic stop of the "wrong" person.
That's the problem - they approach the car, they don't know if it's that one in a million case where they are stopping an armed nutcase. So be polite but firm.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)the search? I've done this before. Got stopped for speeding, cop was having a bad day or something and demanded to search my car. I calmly asked him why, I wasn't doing anything wrong. That was enough for him. The call went out on the radio, I waited 30 minutes while 2 other cop cars showed up, and they proceeded to rip my car to pieces. After another 20 minutes the cop came out of my car with a plastic baggie that had a "suspicious white powder" in it. I was arrested and taken to jail. While I sat in a holding cell yet another cop came to see me. You see the baggie had sugar in it. My kids liked to eat Frosted Flakes dry so I used to bag them up and take them in the car. The cop asked why I didn't tell the arresting officer that it was just sugar. I did, he was a cop, he didn't believe me.
So after a nice day of having my car torn apart and spending a couple hours in jail while they figured out what idiots they were, I was let go with a speeding ticket.
And that is what you get in America for "asserting your rights".
BTW the fact that I said no to the search was what they used as grounds for the search. Denying them access to my car was "suspicious".
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)We each have to decide whether or not to choose to exercise our rights under the Constitution.
Of course there are going to be cases of the police intentionally breaking the law and violating our rights, it's not right, but it's always been that way and probably always will.
This mythical world where the police never intentionally break the law and always make the right decisions doesn't exist and never has.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)That's funny...
treestar
(82,383 posts)But that would be your choice.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)for their violating your 4th amendment rights, and a 1983 action, right?
treestar
(82,383 posts)If he doesn't, tell him you do not consent. Tell him you don't answer questions. If he gives you any shit, you ask him if you are being detained.
You're painting this picture of helplessness. We can stand up for our rights. Cops know they can't search without consent.
treestar
(82,383 posts)No one has to consent to a search. People inexplicably keep doing it.
This is a good video on the subject:
Trekologer
(997 posts)In reality, anything you say is just going to be used against you, even if you think it is benign. If the police think you are guilty of something, nothing you can say is going to convince them otherwise. You say something inconsistent with something you said earlier? False statements to a police officer. You let them search your car? They find a "suspicious" power or residue. Open that locked trunk or glove compartment? You've revealed the blunt object used as a weapon.
CurtEastPoint
(18,652 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)It is all over torts, contracts, and almost any areas of law.
unblock
(52,261 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)unblock
(52,261 posts)it's not at all "reasonable" for a paid professional to not know such things.
in this particular case, knowing that a second working brake light is not legally necessary seems like a pretty basic thing. this is not really obscure law here.
as if they don't already have so many excuses to pull someone over.
few people are actually able to make a short car trip without doing *something* that lets police pull them over legally, from going 56 mph in a 55 mph zone to coming to a "rolling" stop at a stop sign.
now they can pull someone over for anything, and practically make something up.
hey i think your window tint is too much. howz about my dog sniffs your car while i bone up on the law?
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)I heard a blip twice recently that some cops with too high an IQ were removed from their work! Now, THAT makes sense. 
unblock
(52,261 posts)METRO NEWS BRIEFS: CONNECTICUT; Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores
Published: September 9, 1999
A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.
In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.
Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.
Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor's degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ''I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.''
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)better because I didn't know any of the particulars.
marym625
(17,997 posts)On a cheese sandwich! We are just plain fucked. And not in a fun way.
I can't believe Justice Ginsburg voted for this.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)a search after consent is given does not violate the 4th amendment.
I had been following this case ... Had Heien refused the search, or had the search been incidental to an post-arrest inventory, the drugs would have been found inadmissible.
As someone up-thread said, "know your rights." ... Never consent to a search of your vehicle (especially, if you are holding), make them arrest you ... then, the 4th amendment attaches.
unblock
(52,261 posts)as if a traffic cop couldn't find a legal excuse to pull someone over after trailing them for two minutes, now they can practically just make something up and say they thought it was illegal.
Rex
(65,616 posts)in now questionable legal status. Expect 'mistakes' to skyrocket.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)if Heien hadn't consented to the search ... he wouldn't have even gotten a ticket, because of the officer's mistake of the law.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... as a person of color I don't need more of that shit
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)as a PoC you should know this decision changes nothing in the way we are/will be treated.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... my tire look 3lbs less than the other and it's the law to have them the same or some other overtly stupid made up law?
I think so...
Let me know, I could be reading this decision wrong
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you are reading the decision incorrectly ... It's not about "opinion based stops"; but rather, a "mistake" in what the law actually required.
Further, there is, and will always be, "opinion based stops" (e.g., reckless driving).
Finally, Heien was attempting to argue that an officer's mistake in the understanding of what the law required invalidated the probable cause for the stop; but, more importantly, that this lack of probable cause should invalidate his consent to search his vehicle that turning up the dope. That would seem to make sense, since had the police officer understood the 1 tail-light rule, he (likely) would not have stopped Heien ... and no stop, no need for consent to search ... but that's not how the law works. Police need to only articulate a reason for a stop (frequently, mistaken for "probable cause"
, they need Probable Cause (that a crime was/is about to be committed) for a search, unless someone in the vehicle consents to the search. These are separate matters.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)...act or something that sparked their suspicion...
Well, I thought on NPR they had it more clear....
These are the explanations that are more needed
treestar
(82,383 posts)of reasonable suspicion.
There have been cases about DUI checkpoints and border checkpoints where people are stopped on less. But they have to have the standards of those situations.
They can talk to you, I suppose, but you don't have to say anything. Ask them if you are being detained/arrested. If they have nothing, they can't keep you there. Show them you know your rights by asking if you are being detained. Don't answer their questions.
There are lots of good videos about this on you tube.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)based in some fact to even stop someone. You can't just approach people walking on the sidewalk willy nilly, it has to be something more than a 'hunch'. If there was none of that, anything shouldn't have mattered.
OK. Heien made a mistake, but the punishment is OK because the officer "made a mistake". How about if the officer hadn't... you know violated someone's constitutional rights.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)OK. Heien made a mistake, but the punishment is OK because the officer "made a mistake". How about if the officer hadn't... you know violated someone's constitutional rights.
That is not a legal argument. The punishment was not based on the stop ... It was based on what the officer(s) found after the consented to search.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)They still have to show (or based on the recent ruling show they made 'reasonable' mistake)
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police may not stop motorists without any reasonable suspicion to suspect crime or illegal activity, to check their driver's license and auto registration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_v._Prouse
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I will grant that reasonable suspicion (the lowest legal standard) is somewhat circular because every police stop is based on some suspicion of a crime or unlawful activity.
BTW, you have hit on exactly why the SCOTUS ruled the way it did.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)"reasonable suspicion"
When officers stop someone for some reason they don't have "reasonable suspicion" based on more than a hunch. Now they can make a mistake when there isn't a reason.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
cstanleytech
(26,299 posts)be a reasonable mistake and repeatedly making ones on purpose isnt reasonable and any police department that tries that is probably going to end up regretting doing that as it will probably end up with them being sued.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... don't need more of this shit
Baitball Blogger
(46,744 posts)Our country, today, is unrecognizable from the one that I was born to.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
safeinOhio
(32,690 posts)Once I let a cop search my car because I shouldn't mind if I didn't have anything to hide. I didn't so I let him search it. He threw everything I had on the ground and broke some of my grandmothers old antique glass ware. It was terrible and I felt really hurt. Now I'm retired and have nothing but time, so if you think you have reasonable suspicion that I have committed a crime, I'd be happy to wait for you to go to a judge and present that evidence and get a search warrant. You see I'm still pissed about the last time and I don't want my stuff tossed out and broken again.
You have a nice day too, officer.
I hate to argue, but I love a good story.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)They pulled everything out of the glove compartment and threw it all over the floor, then they pulled out the back seat and it would never go back into place. The back seat was basically destroyed and I had no recourse. I will never allow for a search again without making them get a warrant, even knowing that there is nothing to hide.
Rex
(65,616 posts)And they seem to not care at all about the U.S. Constitution. What a dangerous group of corporate owned fascists. Why have any rights at all? Just let cops do whatever the fuck they want (like huge corporations) and fuck any protections guaranteed by law to the serf class.
That seems to be what the PTB want. Fuck American citizens, they are now just another brand or product to be totally exploited and then discarded. THANK YOU Ms. Sotomayor - the only sane person on the bench it seems.
What good are rights, if you don't really have them as a safety net? When the SCOTUS dismisses the 4th that easily, which amendment is next?
cstanleytech
(26,299 posts)because clearly said it had to be a reasonable mistake which in this case is a police officer being wrong about initially pulling someone over and only that.
The search itself was 100% legal because they stupidly gave the officer permission and thats the fault of the driver.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)is a possibility that Helen wasn't aware of ''reasonable" search or probable cause and acquiesced to the search (out of his ignorance) hoping the cocaine wouldn't be found? With drugs in the car Helen knowingly gave permission for a search? Doesn't add up, unless my supposition is correct. imho. Therefore, he lost his 4th amendment right and the court backs it EVEN THOUGH Helen was erroneously stopped in the first place because the officer of the law didn't know the law. Makes sense to me.
I guess ignorance of the law is no excuse for ordinary citizens but not so much for law enforcement officers.
cstanleytech
(26,299 posts)and then searched the car without permission.
Rex
(65,616 posts)This will of course benefit everyone in enforcement profiting off the War on Drugs. Just not so much the cartels. It will actually be a huge blow to drug dealers from low end to high end.
Still I am not allowed to use the excuse of, "ignorance is no excuse as far as the law is concerned"...why does a cop get special rights in that area? Because of their job? Because the SCOTUS wants to hammer down on drugs?
Seem like the later to me.
cstanleytech
(26,299 posts)as the court specifically said it had to be a reasonable mistake which means it better damn well be or the police had better get better liability insurance as they are going to need it when people start suing their butts off if they try any funny stuff.
world wide wally
(21,745 posts)strength of America. Now it is just a tool of the special interests of the billionaires that keep them fat and rich.
ABSOLUTELY corrupt.
PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)
Igel
(35,320 posts)Too many people want to party every time "their guy" finds another way around a check or balance. They're the same who go to a mountain top and await the end of the world every time "the other party's guy" finds another--or even the same--way around a check or balance.
You like checks or balances or you don't.
If you like running roughshod over the opposition, what you are saying is that you like riding roughshod over checks and balances. It's like saying, "I really love children ... esp. with barbecue sauce."
TeamPooka
(24,229 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)They may have ruled that a certain set of actions does not violate the Fourth Amendment and therefore the evidence can be introduced at trial.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)
Turbineguy
(37,353 posts)Instead of wasting time on learning the law, they can practice at the shooting range.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)When I've said that you have no rights that the police feel bound to respect. The police don't give a fuck about your rights, if they have to violate every single right you have, because they want to find some reason to arrest you, detain you or confiscate your property, they'll do it.
Trying to prevent them from doing it would only incite them to escalate.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)probable cause. See my reply #66....vehicles don't need search warrants.
old guy
(3,283 posts)Anyone who believes that a police officer, after being told he cannot search, is just going to let it go at that, is being a little naive IMO. Escalation is definitely going to happen.
Igel
(35,320 posts)Their opinion is irrelevant.
The result wasn't to deny the validity of the 4th Amendment and due process. Due process for the search was upheld.
What was altered was the penalty for violating the 4th Amendment. What is the proper penalty to impose on the government if one of its agents violates due process?
The standard before tossing evidence has varied over time. You don't need a warrant in many cases because of probable cause. Do you need warrants to search cars? That's changed over time; is the car an extension of your home or not? The standard is flexible.
In this case, "reasonable" will certainly need to be defined. I'm not sure there's a valid definition in precedent, and probably not one in statute. It'll vary by state, in any event.
However, let's play a math game. Often you look for boundary values, extremes, maxima and minima in trying to understand a math problem.
This case is simple. The cop shouldn't have pulled over the driver. Therefore any evidence that was found, even if properly obtained after that single improper event, must be ruled out. On principle. The evidence is tainted, and the details of the evidence are immaterial--to avoid moral hazard the state must be penalized for that initial 4th Amendment violation. Sadly, this case has no extremes, unless "extreme inconsequentiality" counts. That just lets the penalty, dismissing all the evidence, be seen as just and right because it's so small. So I'll make up an extreme case.
So in this state you're doing good if you have 1 working tail light. Let's say Mr. Erizo is stopped while going at the speed limit by officer Milicia who sees he doesn't have two working tail lights. Uh-oh, he shouldn't have been pulled over, so anything after that foolish mistake by an ignorant officer is inadmissible by any standard of perfection.
But standing there, writing out the ticket that will be tossed out, officer Milicia hears a baby crying. Since none is visible through the windows, he demands that the trunk be opened. In the trunk he finds a very sick baby on the naked body of a woman who's apparently been raped and strangled. Turns out she's an illegal immigrant and he picked her up as she walked alone, with no witnesses, 10 miles from the border. There's no way to connect her to him, no way to tell where she even entered the US, if not for the illegal traffic stop. If he'd continued on his way, it's likely he'd have buried her, anonymously, where she wouldn't be found for a long, long time--so evidence linking her to him would be entirely lacking. We can argue that perhaps he'd have been in an accident, perhaps he'd have confessed while in a drunken stupor, perhaps he'd have done something else. All of these are possible but not probable.
But we've already argued that the proper standard for due process is to say that anything after that initial violation of the 4th Amendment is inadmissible. That was a principle, and there's no clear, objective way of saying, "The inadmissibility of evidence depends on the severity of the crime that's improperly uncovered." There are too many crimes, and at some point judges are going to be asked to use their reason--to be reasonable--in evaluating when the officer's error is sufficient to dismiss the 4th Amendment violation. That will lead to wildly different standards of justice in different courts.
Which is exactly the problem people have with saying that the SCOTUS decision is wrong, because it relies on a standard of "reasonableness." However this standard relies less on what's uncovered, where emotions are likely to be raw, and more on the initial infraction by the officer. In other words, it evaluates not the guilt or innocence of a citizen prior to trial, but the guilt or innocence of an officer and the admissibility of evidence based on that officer's actions. The officer is trained; has protocols and regulations to follow. Arguably, that's a better place to put the onus.
However, it still leaves the horribleness of my extreme case unreasolved, because let's say that the reasonableness standard leads to what most here suspect will happen: An overwhelmingly disproportionate number of "mistakes" will go against non-white minorities. You know that if 80% of such inadmissible stops are against blacks and if Mr. Erizo is black his lawyer will argue that the evidence found should be inadmissible.
Imperfect laws, imperfect enforcement officers, imperfect citizens can't lead to a perfect system. Zero-tolerance is seldom the answer.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)1step
(380 posts)
Is there anything left the cops CAN'T violate?
treestar
(82,383 posts)The issue was:
Whether a police officer’s mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop.
Heien moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his vehicle, arguing that the State violated his rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Under North Carolina law, Heien argued, vehicles are required to have only one working rear brake light, and, because Heien’s car had one working rear brake light, Darisse did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop. The statute at issue, N.C.G.S. § 20-129 states, “[n]o person shall sell or operate on the highways of the [North Carolina] any motor vehicle . . . unless it shall be equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle.” However, another subsection of this statute, which Darisse relied upon when making the stop, requires that “[e]very motor vehicle . . . have all originally equipped rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order, which lamps shall exhibit a red light plainly visible.” Despite the ambiguity in the Vehicle Light Statute, the trial court denied the motion to suppress the evidence of cocaine, ruling that Darisse had reasonable suspicion that the driver was violating a North Carolina law by driving with a dysfunctional brake light. Therefore, the trial court found that stop was constitutional.
It could all have been avoided without the consent. Don't consent! Demand the citation for the break light and go to court and get it dismissed.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)thinking. However, I think the courts focused on whether the officer had sufficient suspicion to pull the vehicle over in the first place. 
