Posted on 02/03/2015 8:55:29 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
In December of last year, the Supreme Court continued a decades-long tradition of chipping away at 4th Amendment rights by ruling that police may violate those rights “…if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law…”
In the case of Heien v The State of North Carolina, police sergeant Matt Darisse stopped a vehicle he considered “suspicious” because one of three tail lights was faulty. While writing a warning ticket, he then “became suspicious” of vehicle occupants and “their answers to his questions.” When vehicle owner Nick Heien gave Sergeant Darisse permission to search the car, the officer discovered cocaine. Heien was arrested and charged with trafficking.
Heien’s defense presented evidence to the trial court that the State of North Carolina requires a vehicle be equipped with only one working “stop lamp.” As Heien’s car was clearly in compliance, the defense argued that the traffic stop was an “objectively unreasonable” act on the part of Officer Darisse and that, according to the law, it should not have taken place. The defense then moved that evidence of the seized cocaine be suppressed on Fourth Amendment grounds.
But in an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the officer’s “…mistaken understanding of the law was reasonable and thus the stop was valid.” After all, “…the Fourth Amendment requires government officials to act reasonably, not perfectly…” wrote Chief Justice Roberts for the majority.
But Roberts is wrong and his “nobody is perfect” quip is not an acceptable excuse for ignorance of the law or a violation of constitutional rights. In fact it is when testing the limits of 4th Amendment protections that law enforcement must be...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
The cops can make ‘reasonable’ mistakes about the law but for us peons ignorance of the law will not be an excuse.
We are living in tyranny. It will only get worse from here now that the ruling class no longer has to obey any rules.
This is in keeping with my “small victories, big losses” theory regarding USSC decisions. This is a big loss in that it further erodes our rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights... just what the Left always does to its victims.
When vehicle owner Nick Heien gave Sergeant Darisse permission to search the car...
If he had not given permission, I’d have more sympathy for them. People need to take control of their rights. You have every right to refuse a search. Preserving freedom is not always easy.
I’ll have to remember my “reasonable mistake about the law…” for my next defense in traffic court.
It’s only the 20th time this story has been posted here ... :-) ...
” But in an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the officer’s “…mistaken understanding of the law was reasonable and thus the stop was valid.” After all, “…the Fourth Amendment requires government officials to act reasonably, not perfectly…” wrote Chief Justice Roberts for the majority. “
Huh? Then why have laws, if they can be disregarded? And why have individual rights too, eh Roberts
In direct application, this is a lot of hyperventilating about nothing. If you are walking down the street and an office stops you to tell you your shoe is untied... no problem. You stop and fix your shoe lace. If, in the course of conversation with him, he becomes suspicious of you and probes further... we would call that good police work. If it ends in arrest because the suspicions prove true... no rights have been violated.
The same is true in this situation. The police officer stopped the vehicle for a potentially unsafe situation (light out). If he had written his citation and left, there would have been no issue because the citation would have been dropped by the court. However, everything that happened after that is the result of the vehicle driver arousing suspicions.
Makes perfect sense. After all cops are not trained lawyers. My daughter is in law school, and the study is intense! No way a cop can know so much about laws.
No more than the worker in a drug store can know what a doctor with a MD knows.
At the end of day, if you have not committed any serious crime, the judge will absolve you.
People like Holder, Obama, or members of Congress aren’t made to obey the laws, or enforce the ones on the books, so why should cops be treated any differently?
Since corrupt Congress cannot be expected to do its job, the Constitution needs to be amended so that state lawmakers in 3/4 of the states can vote to impeach bad-apple justices off the bench. Likewise with removing bad-apple federal lawmakers and presidents from office.
Video: How one patriot exercised his constitutional rights at a DUI checkpoint
Unless you're an officer of the law. Then you get special privileges.
A cop once told Mr. GG2 that he could open carry without a license in GA. Thank God he checked it out and found out you need a CCL to carry open or concealed in GA. The same cop told him that if he see’s another coyote out on the street just shoot it. Unfortunately its agains’t the law to discharge a weapon within 300 ft of a house here in Gwinnett. LOL!
RIGHT! And same thing for citizens! No way we can know so much about laws. Therefore we, too, can be excused for violating.
Right?
Except that the office didn't break any laws. They can stop for any number of reasons that may not be ticketable offenses. Heck, they can stop ALL traffic with checkpoints to look for infractions.
Reality check... if this officer saw a vehicle with a child in it that gave him a strange feeling, we would applaud him stopping the vehicle under any pretense to determine the welfare of the child. There have been a number of cases where such "gut feelings" led to saving the life of a passenger in a car.
That is exactly the issue- the person was not in violation of any law- nor was his vehicle “unsafe” (whatever that may mean). So, the stop was entirely w/o reason/cause IF the law is being used as the standard ( which it apparently was not).
It is a poor decision to say that the fruit of a poisoned stop is useful is to completely veer off the course of jurisprudence and case law.
Simply because the following events led to discovery of a crime, even though the stop itself has no merit, is to declare all stops valid FI the end result is discovery of a crime.
No restraint left, we are all subject to unmerited interference by LE simply because they “may” “discover” a crime.
While I am glad the coke dealer is now a convict etc, I think the ends should not justify the means. Hitler thought that way.
I don’t know a dammm thing about laws, yet have never been harassed by cops! Why? Because I know the basic rules of lawful behavior.
1. DO not threaten anyone or assault anyone, including family members.
2. Do not shop lift or steal what does not belong to you
3. Do not carry concealed firearms before checking with local police. It just takes a simple phone call.
4. Do not be intoxicated and drive
5. DO not post any violent material on internet
Just follow these common sense rules, and you might have the same good luck I have had with police in 53 years in USA.
There is an ignorance of law enforcement in your response. I don’t mean this in a derogatory way, just that you may not be aware. Cops don’t need a reason to make a stop. They need a reason to issue a citation or to search a vehicle or anything else that comes from the stop... but the stop itself can be performed simply because the cop saw a reason. What happens after that depends on what the cop encounters.
For example... cops have been known to pull over a car that is driving unusually straight. Why? Oftentimes, this can be a sign of suspicious activity as someone is trying too hard to go unnoticed or even a sign of a drunk... who is assiduously following the lines to make it home.
I come from a long line of cops. This “gut feeling” used to be known as good police work and in more cases than not got bad guys off the road.
bfl
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.