Posted on 01/27/2015 1:17:30 PM PST by Yellowstone Joe
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The Rutherford Institute had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s lone dissenter, warned that the court’s ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.”
“By refusing to hold police accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law, the Supreme Court has given government officials a green light to routinely violate the law,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of the award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “This case may have started out with an improper traffic stop, but where it will end—given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption—is not hard to predict. This ruling is what I would call a one-way, nonrefundable ticket to the police state.”
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Police State : 2015
I think that SCOTUS got it right; yes, she won her appeal on the tail light ticket, but no, the stop was still valid and so was her consent to let the car be searched and the resulting charges from that search. I think it is unreasonable to expect that officers to be fortune tellers who will know that a law that has been enforced in a particular way for decades would be re-interpreted. I don't think that anyone - prosecution or defense - should benefit from creative gotcha litigation in the appeals process.
She’s the ‘cartel’ vote on the bench.. Who knows.
Altho this sucks regardless what one’s mission is..
The Stazi on steroids.
There is is folks. This is the demarcation line. From now on we are in the final days of the Republic.
God help us all.
Key to the particulars is the fact that the driver CONSENTED to a search of his vehicle. Never consent to a search, even if you think you have nothing to hide.
Thank you for some perspective!
Ehhh...
I’m certainly alarmed at the erosion of our civil liberties in the face of a growing police state, but I’m not sure that the issue is as cut-and-dry as “Police Can Violate the 4th Amendment.”
It’s always struck me as odd that the people’s award for police misconduct is that murderers get set free to kill more of the people.
SCENARIO ONE:
Deranged mass-murderer is driving down the road with a bloody corpse in the back seat. He comes to a stop. A policeman notices his rear tail light is out, so he signals for him to pull over. On looking in the car window, he sees a decapitated corpse and arrests the serial killer. Oh, no! The law says both tail lights must be malfunctioning! The serial killer gets set free!
SCENARIO TWO:
An internet journalist has posted several incidents of alleged police brutality online. The police suspect the journalist is using an illegal police radio to track down racially charged incidents. A squad car sees the journalist heading towards a crime scene. “We got her this time!” cackles Cop 1 to Cop 2, “her tail light is busted! We have an excuse to search her car!” “But the law says...” “Shut up, Newbie! I have an excuse and I don’t want you blowing this on me!”
Clearly, there is a distinction between these cases, is there not? Can’t a lower court or judge still find a cops alleged ignorance of the law doesn’t give him carte-blanche authority to do whatever he pleases?
Next time it won't be a search with consent and this case will be used a precedent.
It is not good. It's very bad!
The article is not representing the truth in this case.
I am not sure you have read all of it , but much of this article is distorting the truth and not sure why it’s breaking news seeing as it’s not accurate either.
Never knew about this Zero Hedge writing , but having seen how they have written this article and distorting the truth tells me I will not be reading them again.
Key points of the case:
- The officer observed a vehicle traveling at night with one headlight out. The officer stopped the vehicle thinking that the headlamp was a violation.
- During the stop, the officer asked the driver to search the vehicle. The driver consented and the officer found contraband. The officer then arrested the driver.
- Driver talks to lawyer, finds out that one headlamp out is NOT a violation and attempts to throw the whole thing out based on what he thinks is an “illegal” stop.
- However, in the SCOTUS ruling in “Terry vs Ohio” an officer does NOT need probable cause to initiate a stop of an individual. The requirement is actually “reasonably articulate suspicion (RAS)”.
This ruling simply applies that same level of RAS to a traffic stop.
Sorry, taillight, not headlight.
look at the ramifications.
GW gave us the DHS, Obama now uses it to rule over us.
Look to the greater extent and stop looking at the small window.
You all fail to look at it from the standpoint that the police do not need reasonable cause anymore.
Lets say they outlaw all plastic bags in the year 2025, OK, Just for this purpose.
All they have to do is tell the judge, I thought a crime had been committed. When I went into their home I shot the dog because the homeowner was trying to hide his stash of plastic shopping bags which the EPA outlawed last year.
So the crime was committed just not the one we thought. The police do not need proof you committed a crime to enter your house, but once inside, none of us know if we have committed a crime with more than 40,000 new laws being passed every year just in the states alone.
No wonder they rule like they rule. They know they can’t be held responsible by being removed from office.
Silly dangus... everyone knows that one of the best uses for a billyclub is to smash out the other tail light while the driver is handcuffed on the ground with a face full of asphalt and a knee on the back of the neck.
Can’t wait to hear what Mark Levin has to say on this...
Good gravy, the only Justice who agrees with me on this is freaking Sotomayor.
Chilling.
We can what if a whole lot of scenarios. The fact is the driver allowed a search. Even today, if a police officer walks up to you and asks to search you and you agree ... the consequences of that search are still legal.
If an individual does not assert their rights, the the police can and will use that against you. It is really very easy to say “I do not consent to any searches of myself or my property.”
I saw a man get shot and ended up paralyzed by an itchy finger police officer.
I am propolice, but the original stop was for a seat belt violation. The man reached into hi car to get his billfold that was on the seat.
reasonable mistake by the cop? Yes, especially in today’s anti American Anti Cop society, but come on. It started over a seat belt violation.
A FRIGGIN SEAT BELT VIOLATION and a man is now wheelchair bound for life.
Do you know what law you will be breaking tomorrow? Do you want the police to have cart blanch to break into your house over an alleged crime just to shoot you over breaking some EPA regulation law?
Someone said it above, “The Camel’s Nose Under The Tent”
Well, it’s now in a little farther past his ears
Close... but, again, you do not have to afford a cop a warrantless search. Trust us. Your dog will thank you. BTW plastic bags are already illegal in parts of Caliphornia.
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.