Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Two very similar incidents and SCOTUS errodes liberty yet again

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270

    Two very similar incidents and SCOTUS errodes liberty yet again

    The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that a police officer in North Carolina lawfully stopped a car with a faulty brake light - and then found a stash of cocaine in the vehicle - even though driving with one working light is not illegal in the state.

    The court concluded in the North Carolina case that 'reasonable mistakes of law' like those made by the officer in question do not make a search invalid.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sion-case.html
    The incident happened Thursday after Robinson saw an expired inspection sticker on the car Vasquez was driving back to Adam's Auto Mart, 2801 N. Laurent St., where he helps with mechanical work.

    Vasquez got out of the car, which is owned by the car lot, attempting to get the manager. He pointed out to the officer the dealer tags on the back of the car, which would make it exempt from having an inspection.

    https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/new...for-tasing-dr/
    The TX cop will walk, given the SCOTUS decision. Any consequences imposed by his department will be challenged by the cop union and the cop will prevail.

    The bar, that we must jump over, to hold a cop accountable has been raised yet again.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    I love how ignorance of the law is not an excuse, unless it is your job to, you know, enforce the law.

    Law has become such a farce... I really have a difficult time imagining that it might have ever been otherwise.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    ^^ Oh, COME ON. Can you imagine the carnage, the chaos the utter chaotic carnage...if cops had to KNOW the law? Or, wait, maybe they know the law and are just playing dumb?

  4. #4
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    I posted this in another thread. Truly pathetic.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    even before this commie scotus decision cops walked away claiming ignorance and the courts usually pats them on the back for a good job done


    next will be be "oh, i thought that the speed limit sign was 25 MPH" when he just pulls you over on the interstate ...

  6. #6
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    The double standard becomes more apparent all the time.


    The problem though is the "law" prohibiting cocaine. If he pulled him over unjustly but then found a dead body in the trunk I wouldn't call foul.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    The double standard becomes more apparent all the time.


    The problem though is the "law" prohibiting cocaine. If he pulled him over unjustly but then found a dead body in the trunk I wouldn't call foul.
    Agreed. Crack should be handed out at grade school. Can't get them to stay awake? Take a hit... put pipes in vending machines and have dealers between periods.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  8. #8
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Agreed. Crack should be handed out at grade school. Can't get them to stay awake? Take a hit... put pipes in vending machines and have dealers between periods.
    Certainly not in any school that I own or administer!

    It just so happens my 87 year old grandpa was talking about how he could buy heroin (and did) when he was in grade school in New York. He turned out very alright and was very successful. His three sons are a commercial pilot, a surgeon, and the owner of a small software company valued at about 50 million.

    edit: laudanum, that's the name.
    Last edited by 77zach; 12-17-2014 at 12:12 AM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Agreed. Crack should be handed out at grade school. Can't get them to stay awake? Take a hit... put pipes in vending machines and have dealers between periods.
    Oh thank you officer for saving us from ourselves. How could we ever repay you?

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Agreed. Crack should be handed out at grade school. Can't get them to stay awake? Take a hit... put pipes in vending machines and have dealers between periods.
    Right, because having to choose between forcing crack on schoolchildren and brutal, dehumanizing prohibition isn't a false dilemma. Nope, not at all!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    None of that matters. Not the legality of the pull over or the fact there were drugs found.
    What does matter is when the coppers asked to search the car...they consented to the search.
    Stupid is as stupid does. If your kid asks to play with matches, and you say yes, you have no room to complain when your kid has 2nd degree burns from using lighter fluid.

    Cops ask to search your car, say no. No way Jose'. If they want in they have to do so legally. If they do so illegally, the evidence gets tossed as Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. If they do a K9 on it and the find the drugs, sux to be the driver. This is their butt now- )*(. This is their butt in 6 months )o(.
    Last edited by Logan 5; 12-17-2014 at 02:36 AM.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    I've argued in the past that nobody ever meaningfully "consents" to a search when they know they have contraband present. I haven't encountered anything to change my view.

    Cops should not be going around asking for consent to search. If they have sufficient reason to search (a warrant or genuine exigency), they don't need permission. If they receive permission to search, that permission is prompted by either A: innocence, in which case the search is a waste of time, or B: implicit coercion, in which case the search is invalid.

    I promise you that if I was ever on a jury I would treat evidence derived as the result of a "consensual" search as fruit of the poisoned tree, regardless of what the corrupt court might instruct. (I might make an exception for a body in the trunk; maybe the guy was guilt-ridden and about to confess.)
    Last edited by marshaul; 12-17-2014 at 02:44 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I've argued in the past that nobody ever meaningfully "consents" to a search when they know they have contraband present. I haven't encountered anything to change my view.
    Consent is still consent. If they consent and they have drugs on board, it sux to be them. What is it about "I DO NOT CONSENT" that people do not understand? If they're hauling dope, all the better they get busted.

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Cops should not be going around asking for consent to search.
    Cops have the freedom of speech as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    If they have sufficient reason to search (a warrant or genuine exigency), they don't need permission.
    True.

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    If they receive permission to search, that permission is prompted by either A: innocence, in which case the search is a waste of time, or B: implicit coercion, in which case the search is invalid.
    If they receive permission to search, the person giving the consent can also withdraw it. If the cops dishonor the withdrawal, they are now in violation.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    I maintain that virtually everyone who "consents" to a search does so out of fear, or has consent "assumed" by an overbearing cop in the absence of a "sufficient" refusal.

    Seriously. If a guy went around saying to women, "Can I have sex with you? If you say no I'm going to do it anyway." while representing the same implicit threat of kidnapping at gunpoint that a police offer does, how would that not be rape?

    Furthermore, exactly how does liberty (or for that matter any legitimate law enforcement interest) benefit from "consensual" searches in the first place? What's the point – to make a supposedly free people constantly tailor their behaviors to avoid being subject to tyranny? Law enforcement should have no difficulty obtaining warrants in the face of genuine evidence of genuine malfeasance.

    Your position seems to be pretty much "**** you, that's why", or perhaps "I've got mine, so **** you", where in this case the "mine" is sufficient knowledge and confidence to explicitly and firmly refuse a search. That's all well and good, but it doesn't come close to being a functioning argument.
    Last edited by marshaul; 12-17-2014 at 04:40 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Seriously. If a guy went around saying to women, "Can I have sex with you? If you say no I'm going to do it anyway." while representing the same implicit threat of kidnapping at gunpoint that a police offer does, how would that not be rape?
    If the person acting is a cop, it's ok. Otherwise it's rape & is illegal.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    I'd read that before, but today was the first time I bothered to read Sotomayor's dissent. I have to give her credit; not only was her legal analysis better, frankly, than the majority's, but I noted the following (talking about traffic stops):

    One wonders how a citizen seeking to be law-abiding and to structure his or her behavior to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters could do so.
    Nobody seems to ask this anymore. It's always just kind of assumed kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out that any abuses the innocent suffer in the name of "law enforcement" will always be addressed in civil court, and that's somehow completely sufficient.
    Last edited by marshaul; 12-17-2014 at 08:00 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Her question remains unanswered. Though, she does conclude by saying, essentially, even a cop's ignorance of the law should not be excused. Good for her.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    I wrote a response to this vile ruling on another firearms site this morning.


    "This is a bad ruling since it opens the door to all manner of "I thought [believed] that Mr. Jones was in violation of the law" statements by police. It effectively gets them off the hook for bogus stops, and even arrests, since it lowers the bar for probable cause and even RAS. The onus and responsibility should be on the police to both know the law and if in doubt, to verify what is says before detaining a citizen any further.

    A very bad precedent has been set with this."
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Agreed. Crack should be handed out at grade school. Can't get them to stay awake? Take a hit... put pipes in vending machines and have dealers between periods.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    I wrote a response to this vile ruling on another firearms site this morning.


    "This is a bad ruling since it opens the door to all manner of "I thought [believed] that Mr. Jones was in violation of the law" statements by police. It effectively gets them off the hook for bogus stops, and even arrests, since it lowers the bar for probable cause and even RAS. The onus and responsibility should be on the police to both know the law and if in doubt, to verify what is says before detaining a citizen any further.

    A very bad precedent has been set with this."
    we know the drill

  23. #23
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    If a cop pulls you over and wants to search, you can always say "I don't f'ing think so!"
    I can.
    I have.
    And I will again.

    If someone is hauling something illegal and that makes them nervous enough that they consent to a search, then I suppose it sux to be them. They shouldn't have been hauling the illegal stuff to begin with.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan 5 View Post
    If a cop pulls you over and wants to search, you can always say "I don't f'ing think so!"
    I can.
    I have.
    And I will again.

    If someone is hauling something illegal and that makes them nervous enough that they consent to a search, then I suppose it sux to be them. They shouldn't have been hauling the illegal stuff to begin with.
    Liking L5 more and more

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan 5 View Post
    They shouldn't have been hauling the illegal stuff to begin with.
    Nonsense. Ignoring arbitrary and immoral prohibitions is as American as apple pie.

    A big part of the purpose of the 4th amendment is precisely to make it difficult to arbitrarily prohibit contraband (don't forget several of the Founders were smugglers). So, what, we should throw that away in favor of the "right" to "consent" to being thrown in jail for non-crime?

    And you still believe anybody "consents" to being thrown in jail for a non-crime? That's a fiction, and one it isn't worth conceding to tyrants.

    Grow up.
    Last edited by marshaul; 12-18-2014 at 10:39 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •