ignorance of the law is no excuse
The statement "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is an ancient legal doctrine: Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law; but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him. John Selden (1584-1654), posthumously published in Table Talk, 1689.
If a defendant were allowed to escape legal responsibility for his acts, merely by saying "I didn't know it was wrong/illegal", the system of using law to regulate human conduct would collapse. So the doctrine is a practical necessity.
This doctrine still has vitality and validity today. See, for example, Ratzlaf v. U.S., 510 U.S. 135, 149 (1994); U.S. v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 612 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring); Minnesota v. King, 257 N.W.2d 693, 697 (1977).
However, the law in the USA has swelled to a size that is unknowable even by experts. In Oct 1998, the annotated edition of the U.S. Code (i.e., federal statutes) occupied 32 feet of library shelf space. In Oct 1998, the annotated edition of the New York state statutes occupied 22 feet of library shelf space. Who can know all that is within these pages? A criminal law class in law school contains only about 40 hours of lectures, mostly about homicides, with a little about larceny and rape. The only solution seems to be a detailed search of statutes and cases in a database on a computer (e.g., WESTLAW), plus the avoidance of any behavior that harms people, either through physical, financial, or emotional injury, or by deceit.
A related concept in law is "wilful blindness": the criminal defendant who should have known, and could have asked, but deliberately chose not to ask. The law regards "willful blindness" as equivalent to knowledge. U.S. v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700-701 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951 (1976). Cited with approval in U.S. v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d. 946, 950-951 (5th Cir. 1990).
Based on the the above quote it would appear ignorance of the law is no excuse is on shaky ground.
I have a 2000 addition/copy of the federal United States code. It's now 35 feet tall. I also have a copy of all the federal laws enforce in 1935. It's 4" thick.
If "ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies to the citizen, then it also applies to the LEO.
So, the LEO does not get to escape his arrest/citation of the citizen because he did not know the citizen did not break the law. The LEO has a duty to know the law. The LEO makes out a complaint and signs it under penalty of perjury. The LEO said that the citizen broke the law as written. The LEO did not sign under penalty of perjury that the citizen broke the law as to what the LEO thought he understood the law to say.
So, on cross examination of the officer on the stand the following takes place.
Pro se/defendant: Officer, you cited the defendant for xxx, is that correct?
Officer: Yes.
Pro se/defendant: Officer, what legal authority did you rely on to make the legal determination that the defendant violated the law?
Prosecutor: Object, the officer is not an attorney and he cannot make a legal determination that the defendant violated the law.
Pro se/defendant: Judge, is that true the officer cannot make a legal determination?
Judge: That is correct, the officer cannot make a legal determination.
Pro se/defendant: Judge, based on your deternination that the officer cannot make a legal determination as to what the law is and if it was violated, then neither can the defendant make the legal determination that he violated the law. Judge, based on your determination you must dismiss the case.
As you can see ignorance of the law is an excuse.
http://tinyurl.com/6vg6kh
