12-18-2014, 07:56
|
#1
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Raeford, NC
Posts: 3,374
|
Supreme Court Upholds North Carolina Traffic Stop
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that police officers don't necessarily violate a person's constitutional rights when they stop a car based on a mistaken understanding of the law. The ruling prompted a lone dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who warned that the court's decision could exacerbate public suspicion of police in some communities.
In 2009, Nicholas Heien and a friend were traveling down a North Carolina highway when they were pulled over for having a broken tail light. A subsequent search of the car found a plastic bag containing cocaine. It turns out, though, that police had no legal right to stop the car in the first place because, under North Carolina law, having a single broken tail light is not an offense. Heien contended that just as ordinary citizens cannot claim ignorance of the law as a defense, police can't either, and because the traffic stop was illegal, the evidence from the search that followed should not have been permitted in evidence against him.
But the Supreme Court, by an 8-1 vote, ruled that since the officer's mistake was reasonable, it did not violate the constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
|
OoooooH ...I didn't know, I'm just a police officer...
More: http://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/370995...tanding-of-law
__________________
D-3129 Life
"If one day you decide to know yourself...you'll have to choose the warrior path...You'll reach the darkness of your spirit.... Then, if you overcome your fears....You will know who you are."
"De Oppresso Liber"
|
|
Snaquebite is offline
|
|
|
12-18-2014, 07:59
|
#2
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Northeast Utah
Posts: 1,712
|
Quote:
|
Heien contended that just as ordinary citizens cannot claim ignorance of the law as a defense, police can't either
|
I completely agree with the above sentiment/logic.
I thought the police were supposed to be held to a higher standard when it came to the law.
__________________
"The dignity of man is not shattered in a single blow, but slowly softened, bent, and eventually neutered. Men are seldom forced to act, but are constantly restrained from acting. Such power does not destroy outright, but prevents genuine existence. It does not tyrannize immediately, but it dampens, weakens, and ultimately suffocates, until the entire population is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid, uninspired animals, of which the government is shepherd." - Alexis de Tocqueville
|
|
PedOncoDoc is offline
|
|
|
12-18-2014, 08:21
|
#3
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Asscrackistan
Posts: 4,289
|
Well this will effect many other "things" North Carolina Police and Highway Patrol do as far as ID Checkpoints, DUI Checkpoints, and other "Checkpoints" that most have argued the violation of person's constitutional rights.
__________________
"Berg Heil"
History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over."
COLONEL BULL SIMONS
Intelligence failures are failures of command [just] as operations failures are command failures.”
|
|
MtnGoat is offline
|
|
|
12-18-2014, 09:18
|
#4
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: State of confusion
Posts: 1,566
|
I don't agree - The law only mandates that the actions of the officer be "reasonable". They do NOT have to be "right". This also supports them in shootings - where life and death decisions must be made in a fraction of a second. The cops actions do not have to be "right", they merely need to be reasonable. To hold otherwise subjects them to monday morning quarterbacking or - as the Supremes rules: "20-20 hindsight"; and puts them at tremendous risk.
Now that they know this - I suspect that no other cars (in that jurisdiction) will be pulled over for a broken tail light absent other indications of criminality.
|
|
JimP is offline
|
|
|
12-18-2014, 09:26
|
#5
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Northeast Utah
Posts: 1,712
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP
I don't agree - The law only mandates that the actions of the officer be "reasonable". They do NOT have to be "right". This also supports them in shootings - where life and death decisions must be made in a fraction of a second. The cops actions do not have to be "right", they merely need to be reasonable. To hold otherwise subjects them to monday morning quarterbacking or - as the Supremes rules: "20-20 hindsight"; and puts them at tremendous risk.
Now that they know this - I suspect that no other cars (in that jurisdiction) will be pulled over for a broken tail light absent other indications of criminality.
|
You don't think this opens up the possibility/sets precedence for officers to plead "ignorance of the law" to justify an illegal/unwarranted search?
This is not about whether the cops acted within accordance with the law (which they didn't), but about whether or not evidence obtained after an unjustified traffic stop (or house raid, or any other invasion of privacy) is admissible in court because the office did not know/understand the law.
This, of course, would be a non-issue if those arrested a)didn't have cocaine in the car, or b)did not consent to the search.
__________________
"The dignity of man is not shattered in a single blow, but slowly softened, bent, and eventually neutered. Men are seldom forced to act, but are constantly restrained from acting. Such power does not destroy outright, but prevents genuine existence. It does not tyrannize immediately, but it dampens, weakens, and ultimately suffocates, until the entire population is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid, uninspired animals, of which the government is shepherd." - Alexis de Tocqueville
|
|
PedOncoDoc is offline
|
|
|
12-18-2014, 09:26
|
#6
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Raeford, NC
Posts: 3,374
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP
I don't agree - The law only mandates that the actions of the officer be "reasonable". They do NOT have to be "right". This also supports them in shootings - where life and death decisions must be made in a fraction of a second. The cops actions do not have to be "right", they merely need to be reasonable. To hold otherwise subjects them to monday morning quarterbacking or - as the Supremes rules: "20-20 hindsight"; and puts them at tremendous risk.
Now that they know this - I suspect that no other cars (in that jurisdiction) will be pulled over for a broken tail light absent other indications of criminality.
|
I would think it "reasonable" for a cop to know basic traffic laws.
__________________
D-3129 Life
"If one day you decide to know yourself...you'll have to choose the warrior path...You'll reach the darkness of your spirit.... Then, if you overcome your fears....You will know who you are."
"De Oppresso Liber"
|
|
Snaquebite is offline
|
|
|
12-18-2014, 10:15
|
#7
|
|
Asset
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Northern Arizona
Posts: 7
|
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Statu...l?Chapter=0020
North Carolina Traffic Related Statutes
They look basic to me
Jay
__________________
===================================
Whites tend not to riot. They mostly have three speeds:
Uninvolved, Peaceful but passionate protesting, or Genocide
===================================
|
|
AZCOP is offline
|
|
|
12-18-2014, 11:19
|
#8
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: State of confusion
Posts: 1,566
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedOncoDoc
You don't think this opens up the possibility/sets precedence for officers to plead "ignorance of the law" to justify an illegal/unwarranted search?
This is not about whether the cops acted within accordance with the law (which they didn't), but about whether or not evidence obtained after an unjustified traffic stop (or house raid, or any other invasion of privacy) is admissible in court because the office did not know/understand the law.
This, of course, would be a non-issue if those arrested a)didn't have cocaine in the car, or b)did not consent to the search.
|
But they already have that protection. There are quite a few exceptions to the accuracy within a warrant/affidavit allowing this to occur that to rule otherwise may hinder effective policing.
There are a number of exceptions to the inadequacies of a search authorization; there are "good faith" exceptions; etc. Not sure this is tat much of a big deal....
I'm all for knowing basic rules, but what AZCop posted may be a bit much for the average cop to memorize and have readily available for recall.
|
|
JimP is offline
|
|
|
12-18-2014, 14:51
|
#9
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Occupied Pineland
Posts: 4,701
|
The convicted consented to a search of the vehicle following a request by the officer. Absent that permission the officer would have had to articulate probable cause to conduct his search. MOO - the officer might have been "uneducated"; however, the criminal was just plain stupid. No competent lawyer I'm familiar with will ever encourage his client to consent to a search for any reason - there are too many unknowns involved. And yes - it is another slippery slope ruling - a little further down the slope than the last one.
__________________
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero (42B.C)
|
|
Peregrino is offline
|
|
|
12-18-2014, 15:05
|
#10
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: State of confusion
Posts: 1,566
|
That has always baffled me as well - why would an idiot consent to the search of his car KNOWING he has (insert drug here). Now, if a cop has articulable suspicion that there are drugs in the vehicle, he can detain for a "reasonable amount of time" for a drug dog to come and do a sniff; but eventually they have to let you go. I'd never consent to anything were it me.
|
|
JimP is offline
|
|
|
12-18-2014, 15:12
|
#11
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,511
|
I have a joke. Two morons were driving on a road.........
I can see how a police officer might try to abuse this.
|
|
ddoering is offline
|
|
|
12-18-2014, 16:01
|
#12
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,822
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrino
The convicted consented to a search of the vehicle following a request by the officer. Absent that permission the officer would have had to articulate probable cause to conduct his search. MOO - the officer might have been "uneducated"; however, the criminal was just plain stupid. No competent lawyer I'm familiar with will ever encourage his client to consent to a search for any reason - there are too many unknowns involved. And yes - it is another slippery slope ruling - a little further down the slope than the last one.
|
Concur completely.
I too, was wondering what the basis of the search was. Probable Cause can be hard to prove. Consent to Search is not.
I do not agree with the decision, but this likely would not have been a SCOTUS case if the occupants of the vehicle denied the officers consent to search.
Why do people knowingly carrying contraband consent to searches? Good question. Frequently, I suspect stupidity as the root cause.
TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|
|
The Reaper is offline
|
|
|
12-18-2014, 16:33
|
#13
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 7,005
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP
That has always baffled me as well - why would an idiot consent to the search of his car KNOWING he has (insert drug here).
|
I'll take a stab, sir. Uh, because he's an idiot? 
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."
The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
|
|
Badger52 is offline
|
|
|
12-20-2014, 20:07
|
#14
|
|
Guerrilla
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 116
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
Concur completely.
I too, was wondering what the basis of the search was. Probable Cause can be hard to prove. Consent to Search is not.
I do not agree with the decision, but this likely would not have been a SCOTUS case if the occupants of the vehicle denied the officers consent to search.
Why do people knowingly carrying contraband consent to searches? Good question. Frequently, I suspect stupidity as the root cause.
TR
|
My guess, is that's why they call it Dope!!
|
|
Noslack71 is offline
|
|
|
12-20-2014, 20:30
|
#15
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,822
|
I did see a funny one on "Moonshiners" this week.
Two of the 'shiners got pulled over and consented to a search of their vehicle.
The LEO shouted out with glee, "Open container," as he found a Mason jar of clear liquid.
He opened it up, smelled it, and it was only water. End of stop.
The 'shiners asked if they could have their water back before they left.
LMAO.
TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|
|
The Reaper is offline
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:34.
|
|
|
Linear Mode
