Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 08/04/2014 11:32:56 AM PDT by Ken H
And they expected to be released from their possession of incriminating dope because of a broken tail light??!! After the fact of practically telling the arresting officer of their guilt? B. S. !! Red meat here for the ACLU ambulance-chasers and other law-scorners.
Does the law enforcement officer have to know, to the most minute scrutiny, every letter of the Federal law, State Code, county statutes, village regulations, etc before hindering a citizen's progress for further interrogation? Of course not.
Where is the line drawn? One would expect that a highway patrol officer would be well-informed as to the condition standards to be met for vehicle operation on the public highways under his purview. And that is probably true. It appears that the officer was detaining the vehicle for failure in an area which would have legally and logically caused it to fail the Vehicle Inspection requirements:
The question is whether or not the officer correctly judged the vehicle able to pass the minimum vehicle safety specifications according to state code. Was it equipped with safety equipment operating so as to pass the yearly Vehicle Inspection?
The answer seems to be "No."
Here is the North Carolina standards, which the officer must have been well-acquainted, in this respect:
**********
North Carolina Administrative Code 19A 03D Section .0500
19A NCAC 03D .0533 LIGHTS
. . .
(b) Rear Lights shall conform to the requirements of G.S. 20-129(d). Taillights shall not be approved if:
(1) All original equipped rear lamps or the equivalent are not in working order.
(2) The lens is cracked, discolored, or of a color other than red.
(3) They do not operate properly and project white light on the license plate.
(4) They are not securely mounted.
(c) Stoplights shall conform to the requirements of G.S. 20-129(g). A stoplight shall not be approved if:
(1) The lens is cracked, discolored or of a color other than red or amber. Minor cracks on lenses shall not lead
to disapproval unless water is likely to short out the bulb.
(2) It does not come on when pressure is applied to foot brake.
(3) It is not securely mounted so as to project a light to the rear.
. . .
(etc.)
*********
All these fools had to do was to thank the officer for bringing the taillight failure to their attention, and respectfully decline any further delays with their journey, clam up, and leave.
Jerks.
as far as I am aware, a police man can walk up to anyone they wish and talk to them, ask them for ID ect.
Sorry --
So can I. They can politely just say, “No. “ And continue on their way without further harrassment.
I’m going to really enjoy reading the oral arguments on this.
They are LEO’s not Peace officers.
What is a LEO?
Why is SCOUTS hearing a case about how one specific state runs its police powers? What is the stretched constitutional basis for them hearing this?
The police powers of a given state should be manged by the people of that state by through the ballot by representation and referendum.
As far as I am concerned, if the officer stops me because he does not know the law, I ought to be able to collect any amount I deem appropriate from him.
I don’t get the option of deciding what I feel is an appropriate fine when I am wrong so why should he?
Law Enforcement Officer
It looks like this is more about what is a valid stop (a constitutional issue) than what should be the consequences to police for an invalid stop (not constitutional).
But as you know, I consider it legal heresy to have the feds enforce the first ten amendments against the states, basically flipping the constitutional presumption against the feds and limitlessly enlarging the feds power.
Should state or local governments be allowed to violate the 2nd Amendment?
Depends on what the people of the state choose using the ballot to manage these issues through their representatives and referenda. The second amendment is pointed directly and exclusively at the federal government. Using the 14th Amendment as an excuse for the feds to enforce the first Ten Amendments unjustifiably overturned long-standing and correct precedent from the Slaughterhouse cases in 1873 and limitlessly expanded federal government power.
The Constitution was written specifically to create a limited central government whose only powers are delegated by the states and the people via the Constitution.
The beginning point of the Constitution is the persuasive authority of the Declaration of Independence: that individuals are born with unalienable God-given rights. God gives man his birthrights. Man via the Constitution gave the federal government its rights. And all powers not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people (as confirmed by the Tenth Amendment.)
The so-called "Bill of Rights", including the Second Amendment, are actually just a sampling of rights inherently belonging to the people, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and confirmed in the Tenth Amendment. But the prohibitions of each of the first Ten Amendments are pointed at the feds, not the states.
The Fabian Socialists have managed to flip the Constitutional presumption of states' and individual rights so that now, regardless of the actual wording of the Constitution confirmed by the Tenth Amendment, the feds presume power not forbidden them in the mislabelled "Bill of Rights".
The best and clearest explanation of the 'Privileges or Immunities Clause' of the 14th Amendment is Clarence Thomas's brilliant dissent in 'Saenz v Roe' =>
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-97.ZD1.html
Building on his writings in Saenz v Roe, Justice Thomas goes into a detailed explanation of the Second Amendment and the privileges, immunities and rights of citizens in McDonald v Chicago. His concurring opinion is worth a read =>
In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS will incorporate the Second Amendment via the Due Process Clause. Clarence Thomas will write a brilliant concurring opinion in which he refers back to Saenz, and explains why the the original understanding of the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects the RKBA.
11 posted on 03/02/2010 7:03:25 PM PST by Ken H
_________________________________________________________________
Clarence Thomas concurring in McDonald, June 28, 2010 =>
I agree with that description of the right. But I cannot agree that it is enforceable against the States through a clause that speaks only to “process.” Instead, the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment ’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.
I’m a defense attorney and sadly you are correct.
I can always tell when a cop is honest about traffic stops that turn into drug cases.
If they don’t put in the report that they smelled marijuana then it’s a good sign they are being truthful.
Others just throw that in just in case there wasn’t actually articulable facts to support probable cause.
Yea you are mistaken.
The court isn’t going to let consent carry the day here.
If they did then 4th Amendment jurisprudence would be turned on its head.
You can’t get valid consent after an invalid detention.
“North Carolina prosecutors argued the single stop light law was “antiquated” and that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to be perfect. As long as the suspicion is reasonable, they argued, that was good enough.”
You are cracked.
If the law is so antiquated, then you are free to lobby and have it updated. Until then, the law is what it is.
Further, you are a Nazi sympathizer to claim “reasonable cause” is good enough, while completely ignoring and attempting to undermine the 4th ammendment and “Probable Cause”.
You should disbarred and the cop stripped of his badge.
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.