Should ignorance of the law be an excuse for LACs like it is for LEOs/LEAs?

I have seen judges ignore state court and say to the attorneys "you know how I rule on this". There were no arguments presented, his mind was made up.

They will automatically believe the word of a cop over a "civilian" unless the civilian has hard proof. What happened to the burden of proof is upon the state?

In MO:

http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/57500000402.html?&me=perjury

I wonder if any cop has been charged under this statute.

sudden valley gunner said:

SNIP [Judges] will automatically believe the word of a cop over a "civilian" unless the civilian has hard proof. What happened to the burden of proof is upon the state?

Click to expand...

I can't cite the case anymore--memory too foggy on it; but, I recall reading dicta* to the effect that judges presume a disinterested-ness in a cop, the point being to rationalize taking a cop's word for it unless the contradictory evidence is too strong to ignore. Of course, this is totally contradicted by common sense and (Terry v Ohio? Miranda v Arizona?) where the court referred to "the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime."

Steering back towards the thread topic, I was reminded of something on point by a case cited on FourthAmendment.com today. Reasonable mistakes of law. Cops are allowed a certain leeway to make mistakes about the law. I don't recall whether this is nationwide case law from SCOTUS, or just some fed circuits. But, I think its relatively recent. What it did was formalize cops having a different standard.

When you think about it, though, it only makes sense courts would institutionalize this sooner or later. These same government institutions (courts) previously hit us with qualified immunity and the good faith exception, both of which amount to cops-don't-have-to-follow-the-rules. The reasonable mistake of law doctrine fits right in.

One standard for the serfs, another for the rulers.



*Dicta is the text leading to the legally binding part of a court opinion. Dicta is the courts' explanations, rationalizations, and so forth they're going to use to justify the legally binding part of the opinion which is called the holding.

Heien v. NC

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/o...y-police-do-not-violate-the-fourth-amendment/

OC for ME said:

Heien v. NC

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/o...y-police-do-not-violate-the-fourth-amendment/

Click to expand...

The subsection of the law that Heien claimed is vague.

§ 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. ...

Click to expand...

Note the term lamps, meaning, every lamp shall exhibit a red light. This does not state that more than one light [bulb] is required. Only that all originally equipped rear lamps [tail light(s)] shall be in good working order.

The cop got it right and why a "mistake of law" was injected based on the plain reading of the NC statute. There was no mistake of law, yet, SCOTUS has provided another "tool" to LE, at the expense of liberty.

OC for ME said:

Heien v. NC

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/o...y-police-do-not-violate-the-fourth-amendment/

Click to expand...

Thanks. Yes, of course it was. More coffee needed.

Citizen said:

One standard for the serfs, another for the rulers.

Click to expand...

Which is all it really boils down to.

Or in the words of Napolean "some animals are more equal".

It's sickening to see Americans giving up.

Grow a brain, people. Do something. Change it.

JTHunter said:

(This was in Illinois.)
About 20 years ago, a "neighbor" falsely accused me of a misdemeanor charge. In the course of the bench trial, I was able to prove that both the "neighbor" and the LEO testifying for the prosecution had perjured themselves. Neither were prosecuted for that and the LEO is now a detective for that department.

Click to expand...

Judges and prosecutors are in favor of testilying.

The standard should, perhaps, be that members of society know that using coercion against others is wrong. That means that claiming ignorance of law after victimizing someone, such as in the case of home burglary, rape, or assault, is no defense. In the case of violating some obscure traffic law, when no one is injured in any way, and there is no victim, then perhaps it should be a defense, not to mention that the obscure traffic law is probably unjustifiable in the first place.

This standard shouldn't be any different for any human being, since we're all equal. Police are certainly at a disadvantage since their job involves so much use of force. That fact is hardly a burden that should be dumped on the citizenry by means of changing the standard for the boys in blue to allow them more leniency when violating others.

The standard must be that no citizen may violate the rights of their fellow citizen. How do we know what is a right? Easy, do unto others...

Demolish QI, eliminate exemptions in the laws for state agents. If state agents are doing their job within the confines of the law QI and exemptions in the laws are not needed.

OC for ME said:

No, what is worse is when a judge tells reasonable folks (juries) what reasonable is...or should be, or else.

Click to expand...

I think you got it. At some level, the word "reasonable" is an appeal to what is basically common law understanding. Forgetting the obvious question of why such a statute might be needed in the first place, it's not the use of "reasonable" ipso facto which is offensive to justice or liberty. But when a judge defines and redefines things to mean whatever he wants, then he's essentially enabled to dictate the outcome of a trial to the jury.

marshaul said:

I think you got it. At some level, the word "reasonable" is an appeal to what is basically common law understanding. Forgetting the obvious question of why such a statute might be needed in the first place, it's not the use of "reasonable" ipso facto which is offensive to justice or liberty. But when a judge defines and redefines things to mean whatever he wants, then he's essentially enabled to dictate the outcome of a trial to the jury.

Click to expand...

<chuckle>

Ever since John Lilburne's third trial for treason, when a huge cheer went up from the gallery at the jury's not guilty verdict, I guess courts have been a little more sneaky in their method of influencing the jury. In Lilburne's case, I think it was Oliver Cromwell's supreme council who later examined the jurors, pretty much all of who said they judged according to their conscience, or didn't answer much at all. One juror flat out told them the prosecution didn't prove its case, which was an artful dodge and a slap in the face because everybody and their cousin knew Lilburne had transgressed Cromwell's and his Parliament's laws by writing tracts highly critical of the government and its destructions of English liberties.

Several judges tried it again later with William Penn--directing a verdict. The jury ignored them, giving them a pain in the neck by finding Penn and his co-defendant guilty of "speaking" which wasn't a crime.* Then, the judges threatened the jury, and the jury basically said, "OK, then. Not guilty." The judges threw them in jail "...without meat, fire, or tobacco." One of jailed jurors, Bushell, petitioned a higher court for habeas corpus. That court explicitly stated that jurors could not be punished for their verdict, ordering Bushell's release.

So, overtly directing a verdict hasn't worked much since about 1670, thus judges have gotten sneakier.



*Aaaaa--hahahahahahahahahahaha!!! I love that verdict! The judges wanta order us to give a guilty verdict? OK. We'll turn it around and say he's "guilty" of committing a non-crime for which they cannot sentence him. Sublime finesse! Oh, delicious!

marshaul said:

I think you got it. At some level, the word "reasonable" is an appeal to what is basically common law understanding. Forgetting the obvious question of why such a statute might be needed in the first place, it's not the use of "reasonable" ipso facto which is offensive to justice or liberty. But when a judge defines and redefines things to mean whatever he wants, then he's essentially enabled to dictate the outcome of a trial to the jury.

Click to expand...

I am no legal scholar, but I know what reasonable is when I see it and most times what a judges would tell that is reasonable almost never syncs up with what I think is reasonable. Yet, I am to be bound by what a judge says is reasonable even in the face of the self evident...hmmm.

So, is ignorance of the law a excuse? Yepper, but only for cops. Sounds reasonable, no?

In the age of instant computer access to basically all human knowledge, no, it should not be an excuse. It *especially* should not be an excuse for LEO's. If they are not sure if something is illegal, then look it up. No excuses.

GhostOfJefferson said:

In the age of instant computer access to basically all human knowledge, no, it should not be an excuse. It *especially* should not be an excuse for LEO's. If they are not sure if something is illegal, then look it up. No excuses.

Click to expand...

Good start. How about this, if they are not sure (a crime was/is being committed) do not act at all. The "I think that is illegal and if not, no biggie, a judge will fix it." must stop.

OC for ME said:

Good start. How about this, if they are not sure (a crime was/is being committed) do not act at all. The "I think that is illegal and if not, no biggie, a judge will fix it." must stop.

Click to expand...

+1

It occurs to me that "reasonable mistakes of law" undermine the very foundation of government's legitimacy* in this country. The rationale is that "the people" are the sovereigns, and they delegate power to government. Well, that means government's only got the power its delegated it. When the legislative makes something illegal, law-enforcement receives a little bit of delegated power to enforce that law. Yet, allowing cops (government) to seize or cite people for non-crimes means cops are taking/being given a power not delegated.



*I am unconvinced about the legitimacy of the constitution. It starts with a falsehood--We the People of the United States. Nope. It wasn't even half the people. Women didn't get to vote on it. Men who didn't own property didn't get to vote on it. In some states, men who did have land but not a statutorily required minimum cash balance didn't get to vote on it. For sure, blacks didn't get to vote on it--including what? 500K slaves in the southern states? Less than half the people who would be ruled by that document had no say in its adoption. So, when I refer above to the government's legitimacy, I am referring to its self-proclaimed legitimacy--the rationalization used then and since then to justify itself.

GhostOfJefferson said:

In the age of instant computer access to basically all human knowledge, no, it should not be an excuse. It *especially* should not be an excuse for LEO's. If they are not sure if something is illegal, then look it up. No excuses.

Click to expand...

Exactly. We can do it, including looking up their General Orders which guide, if not mandate their every action.

If we can do it, why can't they?

Hell, when I flew B-52s and C-130s, we were held to exacting standards. You should expect nothing less from the military you support with your taxpayer dollars.

In precisely the same vein, you should expect nothing less from your local law enforcement officials. If they're not adhering to their General Orders, much less your State Constitution or the U.S. Constitution, by all means, call them on it! Record their aberrant behavior on voice and video, and ensure those who are violating our Constitutional rights are TOSSED. If they hold their oaths of office and our Constitutional rights in such low esteem that they refuse to even learn, much less follow our Constitutional mandates, well, sorry to say, but they're in the WRONG JOB. Get rid of them. Period.

Judges are the weakest link in our system of justice, and they are also the most protected.

Many insane people and seriously mentally ill people seem reasonable...

My .02

CCJ