• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Supreme Court rules an officer’s misunderstanding of a law is protected

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
http://benswann.com/supreme-court-rules-an-officers-misunderstanding-of-a-law-is-protected/
The case was brought up to a North Carolina appeals court who, according to VOX, agreed the stop was unlawful. The case was then heard by the state’s highest court and the Supreme Court, who both ruled in favor of the officer, saying even if the officer does not know the technical aspects of a law, a search and seizure is still constitutional.

Now while this was a traffic case the implications for open carriers is horrible.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Heartily agreed, I can hear it now...

"Your Honor, I swear I thought walking around in a hoodie in broad daylight was against the law. I'm sure my finding contraband in the defendant's pockets will be upheld, right?"

"Your Honor, my training and experience indicated that anyone with a Glock pistol was likely to be carrying a Glock 18 which is a regulated NFA item, I'm sure my otherwise suspicionless stop of Mr Pedestrian will be found to be proper."

"Your Honor, I realize that I had no training in recognizing the odor of cannabis and it's now apparent that what I thought was cannabis was actually vanilla extract, but I think the 'protective sweep' of the defendant's car which produced _______ should be allowed to stand."
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
This is nearly beyond belief. F************k you CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS!
Your actions in that robe have been treasonous you sell out.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
To be fair, the court has ruled that the officer's misunderstanding of law has to be "reasonable" in order for the exemption to apply.

From the ruling:

US Supreme Court said:
The Fourth Amendment requires government officials to act reasonably, not perfectly, and gives those officials “fair leeway for enforcing the law,” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176. Searches and seizures based on mistakes of fact may be reasonable. See, e.g., Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U. S. 177, 183–186. The limiting factor is that “the mistakes must be those of reasonable men.”

And given the precedence cases cited going back 200+ years, this is hardly a brand new creation of the Roberts' court.

All of Fallschirmjäger's examples would fall outside this exception.

Now, the kicker will be to see if anyone can get a similar "reasonable man" argument to apply to enforcement of laws against us common folks. Frankly, I'd be thrilled if this precedence were extended to all of us. Unintentional violation of obscure and illogical laws would no longer be grounds to impose penalties on decent citizens.

Frankly, we should be thrilled with a ruling that holds to original intent even in unpopular cases like these. It bolsters the odds of the original intent of the 2nd amendment being upheld in additional future cases no matter how unpopular those decisions may be in some quarters.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
How often have we heard that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." ??
Why are certain "people" given a pass and others aren't?

We've always given a pass for certain, honest mistakes in the law. It is only fairly recently that large numbers of laws have been written so as to remove any need for knowingly violating them in order for there to be a crime.

Go read the decision or at least the summary. It appears there is 200+ years of precedence in terms of allowing minimal, honest, "reasonable" mistakes on the part of cops making searches in good faith. Did you want the court to be activist and ignore the precedence and original intent of the constitution?

The better place to direct our efforts is to correct the unreasonable burden placed on citizens. Any decent man inherently knows that assault, murder, rape, robbery (by force, stealth, or fraud), and the like are criminal. We require education so that drivers understand laws requiring us to drive on the right side of the road, when to yield the right-of-way, and other such rules that cannot be discerned by decency or conscience. There are large pubic education campaigns such that nobody can claim ignorance of drug laws. But maybe we ought to require some evidence of intent and knowledge before imposing criminal sanctions on a man for stepping on some endangered dirt, digging a ditch on his own land, or modifying a firearm in some way that seems useful and without any ill intent.

Charles
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
SCOTUS never said anything about an an officer's misunderstanding of the law being "protected"!

Saying that is just trying to stir the pot.

It's not "protected"! It's also not unconstitutional. Big difference there.

I don't agree with the decision. As far as I'm concerned the search and everything it turned up was fruit of the poisoned tree.

But then consent was given to search the car. A magistrate may not have accepted "acting suspiciously" as sufficient to qualify as probable cause and denied the request for a warrant. But we'll never know, because consent was given.

Perhaps ther is a lesson there?

stay safe.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
SCOTUS never said anything about an an officer's misunderstanding of the law being "protected"!

Saying that is just trying to stir the pot.

It's not "protected"! It's also not unconstitutional. Big difference there.

I don't agree with the decision. As far as I'm concerned the search and everything it turned up was fruit of the poisoned tree.

But then consent was given to search the car. A magistrate may not have accepted "acting suspiciously" as sufficient to qualify as probable cause and denied the request for a warrant. But we'll never know, because consent was given.

Perhaps ther is a lesson there?

stay safe.
As a gentleman known to many of us in VA and who makes a practice of going before the bar has said, "Keep you big mouth shut." (KYBMS)
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
All of Fallschirmjäger's examples would fall outside this exception.

What do you base this on? Your personal definition of reasonable?

Is that supposed to be of consolation? I personally don't see how it is.

What, don't you feel all warm and fuzzy knowing this egregious insult to justice is tempered by allowing only reasonable violations of people's rights based on cops not knowing the law?
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Not all is as it seems

NC Statute - § 20-129. Required lighting equipment of vehicles.

(d) Rear Lamps. – Every motor vehicle, and every trailer or semitrailer attached to a motor vehicle and every vehicle which is being drawn at the end of a combination of vehicles, shall have all originally equipped rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order, which lamps shall exhibit a red light plainly visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of 500 feet to the rear of such vehicle.

(g) No person shall sell or operate on the highways of the State any motor vehicle, motorcycle or motor-driven cycle, manufactured after December 31, 1955, unless it shall be equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle. The stop lamp shall display a red or amber light visible from a distance of not less than 100 feet to the rear in normal sunlight, and shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake. The stop lamp may be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_20/GS_20-129.pdf
I disagree with the decision in principal because reasonableness will be determined after harm is done to the citizen. The precedent is now set in rapidly drying concrete.

The cop knows the law and it is not confusing.
 

willy1094

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
201
Location
Nothern KY
I think there should be a well defined difference between working "in good faith" and ignorance of any law LEO's are attempting to enforce. Good faith is working on mistaken information or misinformation (caller calls and says something that is not true, etc). When there is no/little accountability, mistakes seems to run rampant in any field or employment.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I think there should be a well defined difference between working "in good faith" and ignorance of any law LEO's are attempting to enforce. Good faith is working on mistaken information or misinformation (caller calls and says something that is not true, etc). When there is no/little accountability, mistakes seems to run rampant in any field or employment.
It seems to me that there is no difference between "in good faith" and "ignorance of the law." There is ample evidence of this fact here on OCDO.

"I thought OC was unlawful" says the cop getting sued because he jacked up a OCer under a "misunderstanding" of the law.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
It seems to me that there is no difference between "in good faith" and "ignorance of the law." There is ample evidence of this fact here on OCDO.

"I thought OC was unlawful" says the cop getting sued because he jacked up a OCer under a "misunderstanding" of the law.

I do see a significant difference between a mistake in enforcing a law/regulation related to the traffic code and that of laws related to or impacting what I believe to be a fundamental right "to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed"! Will the Courts see this same difference?
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
What do you base this on? Your personal definition of reasonable?

Not my personal definition, but rather my best understanding of what is likely to pass the "reasonable man" test in court. Even a cursory understanding of what the "reasonable man" test is, eliminates from serious consideration any and all reductio ad absurdum examples.

Which is not to say that the ruling doesn't leave the door open to plenty of potential injustices. Nor should anyone confuse my attempt to clarify what the ruling really says as me necessarily being a fan of the ruling. I just think it better to accurately understand a ruling than to operate from a position of misunderstanding.

As a fan of strict construction and original intent of the constitution (including the 2nd amendment), it is notable that the court is correct that the 4th amendment does not protect against every imperfect search, but only against "unreasonable" searches. Perfection is not a reasonable standard to require of anyone. That too many laws require it of private citizens is the problem, not that the courts do not require perfection from cops.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I do see a significant difference between a mistake in enforcing a law/regulation related to the traffic code and that of laws related to or impacting what I believe to be a fundamental right "to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed"! Will the Courts see this same difference?

A very good point.

Any limitation of fundamental rights require strict scrutiny, or the highest standard of justification.

Mere privileges might fall into a "rational basis" test or the lowest level of justification.

Charles
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
A very good point.

Any limitation of fundamental rights require strict scrutiny, or the highest standard of justification.

Mere privileges might fall into a "rational basis" test or the lowest level of justification.

Charles

I would say that a right cannot be subject to any regulation because any regulation would then make it a privilege.

Rights ARE absolute. Rights cannot be voted on by ANY gov't official .. member of legislative, executive, or judicial branch.

My thinking on what a right is and is not.
 
Last edited:

Logan 5

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
696
Location
Utah
What value is a mere opinion? I think it's a case by case issue, not widespread.
 
Top