PDA

View Full Version : NPR: Supreme Court Rules Traffic Stop OK Despite Misunderstanding Of Law



Cthulhu
12-16-2014, 02:05 AM
NPR: Supreme Court Rules Traffic Stop OK Despite Misunderstanding Of Law. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw6JGQ7R8

It is odd. But I actually agree with Justice Sotomayor on this. This bull**** happened to me twice last week, only I manages to not t get searched and fined (which is a friggin miracle if you ask me).

It is basically allowing police to get away for with not knowing the law, yet enforcing something anyways.

Creepy stuff.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

Peter1469
12-16-2014, 06:06 AM
The majority opinion said that the cop's mistake was reasonable. If a cop doesn't know that state law says one broken tail light is not an offense, I would say that mistake is per se unreasonable. The cop should be retrained and reassigned to desk duty if he can't master the basics.

donttread
12-16-2014, 06:50 AM
Constitution, what Constitution? FYI to the defendant though: If you have drugs in your car take the tail light ticket and refuse the search.

Crepitus
12-16-2014, 08:18 AM
Utter bullshit. How can the cop be excused for not knowing how to do his job? Plus, if ignorance of the law is not an excuse for average people then it sure as hell shouldn't be for police. They should be held to higher standards than people who aren't expected to know the law as part of their jobs.

SCOTUS no longer represents the citizens of the United States.

Chris
12-16-2014, 09:22 AM
NPR: Supreme Court Rules Traffic Stop OK Despite Misunderstanding Of Law. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw6JGQ7R8

It is odd. But I actually agree with Justice Sotomayor on this. This bull**** happened to me twice last week, only I manages to not t get searched and fined (which is a friggin miracle if you ask me).

It is basically allowing police to get away for with not knowing the law, yet enforcing something anyways.

Creepy stuff.



Agree.

“One is left to wonder,” she wrote, “why an innocent citizen should be made to shoulder the burden of being seized whenever the law may be susceptible to an interpretative question.” In Sotomayor's view, “an officer’s mistake of law, no matter how reasonable, cannot support the individualized suspicion necessary to justify a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.” From Supreme Court Sides With Police In 4th Amendment Case Arising from Officer’s ‘Mistake of Law’ (http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/15/supreme-court-sides-with-police-in-4th-a).


Not sure how a mistake can be reasonable. Perhaps in form (if then, then that) but surely not in substance. It's based on a false premise.

PolWatch
12-16-2014, 09:50 AM
Another example of how there are 2 sets of rules...one for citizens and another for cops

Cthulhu
12-16-2014, 11:34 AM
Utter bull$#@!. How can the cop be excused for not knowing how to do his job? Plus, if ignorance of the law is not an excuse for average people then it sure as hell shouldn't be for police. They should be held to higher standards than people who aren't expected to know the law as part of their jobs.

SCOTUS no longer represents the citizens of the United States.
Which reminds me of this nugget-

" Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." Inre McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100. "

This is why SCOTUS loses its street credit with me. They contradict themselves all the time.

I guess it depends on whether or not they like you or if they have had their morning coffee. Because precedent obviously doesn't matter anymore.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

Don
12-18-2014, 12:26 AM
The problem I have with the ruling is zealous police who might pretend ignorance as an excuse to violate someones rights.