Two very similar incidents and SCOTUS errodes liberty yet again

OC for ME · Dec 16, 2014

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/art...ks-police-car-brake-light-confusion-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/ne...ia-police-officer-investigated-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.

marshaul · Dec 16, 2014

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.

Maverick9 · Dec 16, 2014

^^ 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?

The Truth · Dec 16, 2014

I posted this in another thread. Truly pathetic.

davidmcbeth · Dec 16, 2014

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 ...

77zach · Dec 16, 2014

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.

Primus · Dec 16, 2014

77zach said:
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.

77zach · Dec 17, 2014

Primus said:
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.

georg jetson · Dec 17, 2014

Primus said:
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?

marshaul · Dec 17, 2014

Primus said:
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!

Logan 5 · Dec 17, 2014

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(.

marshaul · Dec 17, 2014

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.)

Logan 5 · Dec 17, 2014

marshaul said:
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.

marshaul said:
Cops should not be going around asking for consent to search.

Cops have the freedom of speech as well.

marshaul said:
If they have sufficient reason to search (a warrant or genuine exigency), they don't need permission.

True.

marshaul said:
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.

marshaul · Dec 17, 2014

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.

Logan 5 · Dec 17, 2014

marshaul said:
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.

OC for ME · Dec 17, 2014

The Opinion

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

marshaul · Dec 17, 2014

OC for ME said:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

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 [strike]kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out[/strike] 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.

OC for ME · Dec 17, 2014

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.

SouthernBoy · Dec 17, 2014

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."

END_THE_FED · Dec 18, 2014

Primus said:
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

Two very similar incidents and SCOTUS errodes liberty yet again

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member