Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:35AM   Printer-friendly
from the forget-whatever-you-thought-you-knew dept.

I didn't realize that the 4th Amendment coffin could take any more nails, but the Supreme Court has ruled that "A police officer can stop a car based on a mistaken understanding of the law without violating the Fourth Amendment." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/us/politics/justices-find-no-rights-violation-in-officers-misreading-of-law.html?_r=0 The vote wasn't even close, 8-1. Only Sotomayor dissented. Link to the actual opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

From the NYT article:

Chief Justice Roberts conceded that the court’s decision at first blush ran afoul of the maxim that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

On reflection, he said, the maxim holds the government and its citizens to the same standard where it counts.

“Just as an individual generally cannot escape criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “so too the government cannot impose criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law.”

Huh? Either I'm going crazy or words have lost all meaning, because what he just ruled is that cops who don't know the law, make valid arrests because they are mistaken about the law while if in the same circumstance, the cop knew the action was not consistent with law, the arrest would not be valid -- thus ignorance of the law benefits the cops immensely, a real person has been subjected to criminal liability because of this ignorance, and now the law can mean whatever the dude with the badge and gun says.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:44AM

    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:44AM (#126703)

    ...a separate standard for those in power.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 17 2014, @01:29PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @01:29PM (#126845)

      For example, let's say, for the sake of argument, that there were definitive evidence that a group of people had organized the torture of 26 completely innocent people, killing several of them. Should the government (a) arrest, try, and punish the people involved, or (b) say that the whole thing wasn't a problem?

      Ok, how about something on a smaller scale: Let's say that somebody shoots a 12-year-old kid who hadn't done anything wrong. Should the government (a) arrest, try, and punish the person who fired the shot, or (b) try to find a reason why the shooter had a legal right to do that?

      Ok, let's leave guns out of it: Let's say a group of 5 guys come up to somebody on the street who isn't bothering anyone, and beat and choke him to death. Should the government (a) arrest, try, and punish the people involved, and especially the person who choked the victim, or (b) say that was A-OK?

      It doesn't even have to be government people who committed the crime. Let's say there was definitive evidence that a civilian had run over a completely innocent person with their car while driving under the influence. Should the government (a) arrest, try, and punish the person for manslaughter, or (b) give the person in question a pass because he owns a major business in the area?

      That's where US law is right now, and it's no wonder a lot of people are angry about it. It goes the other way too: People have been summarily executed in public for jaywalking, and some people think that's just fine.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by pogostix on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:15PM

        by pogostix (1696) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:15PM (#126855)

        That poor kid was pointing a gun at people. If I was one of the passer-bys I would have wrenched it out of his hands and stomped on it.
        The cop did open fire way to soon and should be fired. And tried. Whether he's guilty or not I couldn't say.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:52PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:52PM (#126887)

          That poor kid was pointing a gun at people.

          You left out a key fact: The gun in question was a BB gun, which can bruise but doesn't do any lasting damage unless you're hit in the eye. I'll put it this way: When one of my middle school classmates shot me with one on the street one afternoon, nobody in authority did anything about it.

          And then the cop pulled up and fired less than 2 seconds later without giving him a chance to drop the (non-)weapon that he had neither fired nor pointed in their direction. This was a cop who had been previously formally disciplined for drawing and shooting unnecessarily in a department that was recently cited by the Department of Justice for routinely drawing their guns when they shouldn't be.

          It looks highly suspicious, to say the least.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:38PM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:38PM (#126928) Journal

          Sorry but that kid was a perfectly justified shoot, tragic that it was. If you'll play the video frame by frame you'll see the SECOND the cop starts opening his door the kid reaches for the gun...well WTF was the cop SUPPOSED to think at that point?

            Put yourself in the cop's shoes, you get a call saying somebody is waving a gun (911 didn't tell the cops and rightly so that a civilian said it might be fake as 911 had no way of knowing if the civilian was talking out their ass or had seen it from a block away) and the SECOND you start to open your door they start to pull the gun...what would a reasonable person conclude? I'd say its obvious that a reasonable person would think he was about to get shot.

          As for TFA? I call bullshit. Cop sees a guy driving with a taillight out and pulls them over, upon talking to the driver gets suspicious and does a search and finds coke. The lawyer argued that since the law in that state says TECHNICALLY that you can drive with a taillight gone that he should have never stopped him...bullshit because even if its 100% legal to drive with only one taillight its still within the cop's duty to pull the person over because that person may not even know they have a taillight out. So either way the cop had a legit reason to pull the guy over so he still would have become suspicious and it would have still ended the same, the dealer just wouldn't have gotten a ticket for having a light out is all.

          As somebody who still has a scar on the back of his head from an asshole cop I'm all for limiting police power as much as possible but we have to temper it with basic common sense folks, after all its legal in my state to only have one (its even legal in my state to use hand signals instead of lighted signals as a cop that once pulled me over found out when he called dispatch after I explained that hand signals was still on the books) but its also legal in every state to pull somebody over to warn someone there is a problem with their vehicle.

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:06PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:06PM (#126950)

            The cop was supposed to die for the kid (and humanity in general).

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 17 2014, @07:50PM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @07:50PM (#126977) Journal

            a) They know the risks when they take the job. If they aren't willing to accept those risks, maybe they shouldn't apply.

            b) They've got bulletproof vests and armored cars. The kid didn't.

            c) They're trained to deal with these kinds of situations. The kid wasn't.

            d) They've got backup. They've got medical training and some equipment. They've got EMTs only a radio call away.

            e) The cop has a variety of non- or less-lethal options.

            The cop is given every advantage. The fact that the kid appeared to reach for something which appeared to be a weapon is not reason enough for him to be killed without *any* attempt to resolve the situation through other means.

            I mean I get it, people get scared, people make mistakes, cops are human too. But this is more than that. They won't admit it was a mistake. They won't admit any responsibility. If my son throws a baseball through the neighbor's window, it doesn't matter that it was my son and not me, it doesn't matter if he intended to or not, I'm still paying for the goddamn window. I don't go tell the neighbor it's his fault for having windows. Yet the police routinely make mistakes that leave people dead or disabled and then have the audacity to blame the victims EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

            • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday December 18 2014, @05:16AM

              by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday December 18 2014, @05:16AM (#127083) Journal

              I tell ya what, you put on a BPV and I'll draw from the hip and blaze a clip at ya...how about that? A BPV isn't an iron man suit, just as many cops in the ground from getting popped despite the BPV as there are above ground from wearing it. And ya might want to look at the video, its a car not a tank. It seems like the left wing don't like cops driving around in tanks, so maybe you should be posting a petition in support of military vehicles for cops if you really feel this way?

              Of course the easiest thing to do would be to teach kids not to pull the orange caps off their air guns and tell them they shouldn't go around pointing them at people and NEVER whip one out at a cop. Naaaah, that would make too much sense, can't have that, that would involve personal responsibility, the horror! BTW hope you are for private gun ownership because if you think anybody would take the cop's job with your conditions attached? You'd have better chance winning the powerball than calling 911 and having a cop show up. But you go right ahead and think they should have to take a bullet in the of chance mister criminal is using a fake weapon, after all with rules like that why they'll never have a problem getting cops to work in the ghetto, nope I bet they'll be lining up to get 30k a year to take a bullet, yessirree boy!

              --
              ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Thursday December 18 2014, @12:01AM

        by Magic Oddball (3847) on Thursday December 18 2014, @12:01AM (#127032) Journal

        To add to that, the violent crime rate was much higher in the 1980s & early 1990s than it is now, and police were in far more danger at the time from teenagers & young adults thanks to the rise of drug-dealing gangs, yet I suspect I'm not the only person that can't recall a single incident from back then that was remotely similar to these. There was no shortage of toy guns, either.

        Likewise, when the police visited my elementary school a few times (for the various safety programs: how to not be kidnapped by weirdos with puppies in white vans, DARE, etc.) their message regarding dealing with them boiled down to "if something's wrong, the police will come talk to you; they're good adults you can run to for help, so be friendly and cooperative." Not "immediately reach for the sky if the police show up, because we can't distinguish between a pre-teen and an expert hitman."

        It looks to me like the real problem has little to do with what any law-abiding children do, and a hell of a lot to do with police being militarized & trained to regard us in the same manner that the military views civilians of hostile nations...

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday December 18 2014, @01:43AM

          by Thexalon (636) on Thursday December 18 2014, @01:43AM (#127052)

          Actually, these kinds of things were going on in the 1980's and 1990's. The difference is that now the majority of Americans think that they're bad.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Daiv on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:57AM

    by Daiv (3940) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:57AM (#126708)

    Look, anything can be taken to an absurd extreme. The summary goes like this. Guy in North Carolina gets pulled over with a buddy for a broken tail light. Cop decides to search the car based on suspicion. Finds some cocaine. Guy pleads guilty to possession and distribution of cocaine. No contest. Lawyer finds out later that in North Carolina *specifically* it's not illegal to drive with a busted tail light. Ergo, discovery of cocaine was illegal.

    The ruling ultimately says if a police officer makes a *reasonable* mistake (thinking it's always illegal to have a busted tail light) then it's okay. Not that the cop can make up anything they want. It has to fall into the subjective *reasonable* clause.

    The opposite ruling would have been horrendous for all police officers. They would need to memorize, in detail, every law and each change to any existing law at all times or they would not be able to do their job.

    Also, keep this in mind: Just being arrested does NOT mean you're guilty in the USA. Cops are not judges. Innocent until proven guilty still puts the burden on the state to prove it. I'm sure everyone has some anecdotal case, but no system in the history of the world is flawless. This is just one more refinement of the flawed system in the USA>

    • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:06AM

      by Nerdfest (80) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:06AM (#126712)

      Nice summary, thanks. It does seem that many police consider themselves judge jury and executioner sometimes, although many of the latest 'newsworthy' events are over-hyped.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by chromas on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:30AM

      by chromas (34) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:30AM (#126721) Journal

      They would need to memorize, in detail, every law and each change to any existing law at all times or they would not be able to do their job.

      Their job is to enforce the law, so yeah, they probably should know what the law is. It's not like they have to remember every law in the world—just the ones relevant to their jurisdiction.

      • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:44AM

        by Nerdfest (80) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:44AM (#126726)

        Have you *seen* what the laws are like in most places? It's not even the insane volume of text, it's the way it's written. Even with a proper refactoring (which is sorely needed), it's an impossible task. I would bet most judges don't know the law and read up on it before each case.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:58AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:58AM (#126733)

          So the FIX THE LAW, don't enable the lawbreakers!

          • (Score: 2) by redneckmother on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:15AM

            by redneckmother (3597) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:15AM (#126742)

            +1, if I had points. There are too many laws on the books, and many of them make no sense.

            --
            Mas cerveza por favor.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:38AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:38AM (#126765) Journal
            And what are the police supposed to do in the meantime? This won't be a short term fix. It probably won't be a long term fix either because there is no real political will to simplify law.
            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:21AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:21AM (#126775)

              > And what are the police supposed to do in the meantime?

              Surely there is no shortage of crime. They can choose to spend their resources on cases of clear cut lawbreaking in the meantime.

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday December 17 2014, @10:51AM

              by sjames (2882) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @10:51AM (#126815) Journal

              The same thing the rest of us do. Even the village idiot is expected to obey the law at all times and ignorance of that law is no excuse. I guess the cops just need to be a bit smarter than the village idiot.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:45PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:45PM (#126905)

                What i've not seen mentioned here is the fact that, to the best of my knowlege, every American police cruiser is equiped, as standard, with a computer terminal. These are used to run spot checks on suspect vehicles, expired licence plated, even checking ID. Given that these devices are in the cruisers and are networked, then surely adding the ability to perform a search for specific laws would be beneficial not only to the police but also to the public at large.

                Please do not think that i offer this suggestion as an excuse or in defence of the dude busted for coke, simply that had the officer had the ability to check on that law at that time he might have been able to select some other low hanging fruit to get 'er done

          • (Score: 2) by Daiv on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:17PM

            by Daiv (3940) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:17PM (#126857)

            It is infinitely easier to create a new law then to repeal an existing law. Fixing the laws at this point would take a wholesale change to the entire system. This case is a prime example of someones idea of a fix to a law.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by gargoyle on Wednesday December 17 2014, @08:59AM

          by gargoyle (1791) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @08:59AM (#126802)

          Have you *seen* what the laws are like in most places?

          And yet, as citizens we should know every one of those insane laws because for us, ignorance of the law is no defense.

          If you are in a position where people paid to enforce the law can no long understand all the rules, then the rules are far to complicated to be considered as suitable for any rational civilization.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @09:40AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @09:40AM (#126810)

            A friend of mine is a lawyer. A few years ago, I asked her this question:

            Me: As a member of the public, I'm supposed to know and obey the law, because ignorance is no excuse, correct?
            Her: Yes.
            Me: So, as a member of the public, there are some laws I must get professional advice on because (in my not-US country) if I write up a contract in said field, it cannot legally be enforced because it was not written by a lawyer.
            Her: Yes.
            Me: Ultimately, I'm required to follow all the laws but the law accepts that some laws are too complicated for me to understand, as a layperson, so I cannot be expected to obey them without advice, but I am expected to obey them at all times.
            Her: Shut up! Stop making me question my choice of profession.

            What she said made me chuckle, but ultimately it's a lose-lose situation: We have to obey the law, but we cannot be expected to have a reasonable understanding of it at any level because we're not professionals.

            She's quite pretty, too, but I can't read body language worth a damn so who knows?

            • (Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday December 17 2014, @10:02AM

              by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 17 2014, @10:02AM (#126812)

              > a contract in said field, it cannot legally be enforced because it was not written by a lawyer.

              In which country do these laws exist? How on Earth I am not under obligation if I explicitely agreed and signed something?

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday December 17 2014, @10:48AM

          by sjames (2882) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @10:48AM (#126814) Journal

          If *I* am held responsible for obeying every law all the time, it hardly seems too burdensome to expect cops and judges to know those laws at LEAST as well as I am expected to. If a judge, someone who specializes in understanding the law, can't know all of it then it is absolutely Kafkaesque to hold me responsible for knowing all of it. In other words, it suggests that perhaps ignorance of the law should be an excuse. Perhaps we need a reasonable man test for knowledge of the law.

          In general, exclusion of evidence is designed to make it as if the law wasn't violated by police (intentionally or not), so the reasonable ruling is that evidence discovered during a mistaken traffic stop is excluded. The stop never happened, the evidence was never seen (from a legal standpoint).

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:38PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:38PM (#126876) Journal

          Fair enough, but how about we hold citizens and those charged with enforcing the law to the same standard? If the law is too complex for cops to understand and enforce properly, then it cannot also be expected that the average citizen should do better, especially when the former is holding a gun and (now) can take you down in a hail of bullets with total impunity.

          I swear, at the moment the entire United States of America is like Wiley Coyote moments after having run off the edge of the cliff--our arms and legs are flailing, we sense we're screwed, but our body has not yet understood it is about to plunge into the abyss.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:46PM

            by Nerdfest (80) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:46PM (#126882)

            I agree, but it always gets a bit fuzzy when the term 'reasonable' is used. Occasional decisions by judges will piss people sometimes, in both police and citizen cases.

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:25PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:25PM (#126922)

          Illustrative case: My mother used to practice law in front of future SCOTUS Justice David Souter fairly frequently early on in his judging career, and she actually successfully corrected him on a matter of law. It turned out the problem was that Souter had been using an older edition of the law books.

          (Overall, she liked arguing in front of him, and still thinks he was one of the best judges we've had in recent years.)

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday December 17 2014, @07:42PM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 17 2014, @07:42PM (#126973) Journal

          If police can't be expected to obey they law, why is anyone else?

          It's not like they need to know all the laws, only the ones they choose to enforce. (And with the number of laws on the books, choose is definitely the correct word.)

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 17 2014, @08:05PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @08:05PM (#126981) Journal

          Have you *seen* what the laws are like in most places? It's not even the insane volume of text, it's the way it's written. Even with a proper refactoring (which is sorely needed), it's an impossible task. I would bet most judges don't know the law and read up on it before each case.

          You're missing the point entirely.

          Yeah, you're right, the law is way too complicated. But I, as a common citizen, am expected to know it perfectly. If I don't, I can go to prison. And yet, according to this ruling, police officers -- whose one and only job is to know and enforce the law -- AREN'T expected to know it perfectly? The problem is the double standard. And furthermore, when in conflict, the cop's understanding always wins.

          So we end up with three facts that all seem perfectly reasonable alone, but are completely mind-boggling when taken together:
          1) I am legally required to know each and every law that applies to me. Despite not being paid to know them.
          2) Police officers are NOT legally required to know each and every law that applies to me. Despite being paid to know them.
          3) When in doubt, the police officer's interpretation of the law always wins.

          If everyone obeys the law...the police can arrest you for anything they want, whether there's a law against it or not, and there's nothing you can do about it.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by MrGuy on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:00AM

        by MrGuy (1007) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:00AM (#126734)

        The problem is that the law itself can be highly ambiguous. Even if you could quote chapter and verse, you might run into a piece where the actual meaning is hard to parse, and indeed there won't be an "official" interpretation until a court weighs in. Like this case.

        From TFA:

        The North Carolina vehicle code that requires "a stop lamp" also provides that the lamp "may be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps"...and that "all originally equipped rear lamps" must be in "good working order."

        Read that again and tell me whether it would be obvious to YOU whether a vehicle with a cracked rear light assembly would or would not be in violation of the law.

        Sure seems like it would be a violation to me - it's an "originally equipped" light on the rear of the car, and it's not in "good working order." In fact, why are we having this conversation at all?

        Oh, because apparently a "stop lamp" and a "rear lamp" are DIFFERENT THINGS, even when combined into a single unit! Look at the red thing on the back of your car. There are probably multiple bulbs in there. Apparently, under NC law, if that unit is broken AND the part that is broken is a turn signal or marker light, then a "rear lamp" is broken, so you can't drive it. BUT! If the piece of the unit that's broken is the brake light, then it's a "stop lamp" and not covered by the "good working order" requirement, that ONLY applies to "rear lamps" and not "stop lamps."

        That totally makes sense, right? It would be TOTALLY unreasonable to pull over a car with a busted brake light, because clearly all stop lamps don't have to work as long as one does (unlike rear lamps).

        OK, sure, so that's a finicky piece of law, but hey, this is a cop - shouldn't cops know these details? I mean, they should know how a court would interpret the "rear light" vs. "stop light" question, shouldn't they?

        Oh, wait - there's also this gem:

        Although the State Court of Appeals held that "rear lamps" do not include brake lights, the word "other," coupled with the lack of state court precedent interpreting the provision, made it objectively reasonable to think that a faulty brake light constituted a violation.

        So, at the time of the traffic stop, there was NO court precedent on this.

        The ruling that a "stop lamp" was not covered by the "good working order" requirement that applied to "rear lamps" came about because of this case. At the time of the stop, the officer had no guidance other than his personal interpretation of the law. And even if he knew the law word for word, it's not clear that his actions were unreasonable.

        And that's assuming that we believe it's reasonable to expect a cop to read the law and clearly pick up on "stop lamp" and "rear lamp" having DIFFERENT legal standards when it's a stop lamp on the rear of the car.

        What a ruling counter to the one we in fact have here would mean is that a cop, dealing with a highly technical issue of law, is punished for not being sufficiently clairvoiant as to discern what guidance a FUTURE COURT RULING will provide with complete accuracy.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:22AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:22AM (#126745)

          The problem I have with that reasoning is that the person who bears the burden of a screw up is the citizen. The cops are professional law enforcement, citizens are not. If a cop applies overly broad interpretation the citizen has a major hassle to deal with to get it straightened out. If a cop applies too narrow of an interpretation there is no cost to the cop. Thus the people who are least experienced have the most to lose while the people with the most experience have practically nothing to lose. It seems the legal system in general is designed with the presumption that going to court is a neutral life event when the reality is that win or lose the price is still high.

          If the problem is that legislation is too ambiguous, the default should be to give the citizen the benefit of the doubt, not the state. Similarly to the way contract law is applied - the party that writes the contract must accept the interpretation that most favors the other party.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:33AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:33AM (#126763)

          What a ruling counter to the one we in fact have here would mean is that a cop, dealing with a highly technical issue of law, is punished for not being sufficiently clairvoiant as to discern what guidance a FUTURE COURT RULING will provide with complete accuracy.

          Good. Maybe it would mean they would stop abusing their authority.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @08:36AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @08:36AM (#126798)

          The problem is that the law itself can be highly ambiguous. Even if you could quote chapter and verse, you might run into a piece where the actual meaning is hard to parse, and indeed there won't be an "official" interpretation until a court weighs in.

          Gee, guess what? This applies to every common people in the country! And worst, if the common people "wrongly" interpreted the law ("wrongly" basically means "different from what a judge may decide later"), they get penalized under the law.

          Whereas, if a cop similarly misinterpreted the law, they just had to let someone off the hook while suffering no personal loss.

          Wow, a cop being held to the similar standard (actually, lower, since there is no personal stake for the cop) as the common people, that must make somebody's head hurt.

          With this ruling, you can bet that cops will be "misinterpreting" and "misunderstanding" every law in every circumstances that they would benefit from such.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:43PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:43PM (#126878)

          YOU whether a vehicle with a cracked rear light assembly would or would not be in violation of the law.

          Yes I am in violation of the law. Inspection codes are fairly plain language. Because you need all lights installed on the car to be working to pass inspection. If you do not pass inspection you are not allowed to drive the car. In the state of NC you are not allowed to drive the car if it would fail inspection. They will let you off with a warning if they pull you over if you are making a good effort to get it fixed. You can show them I am going there right now or 'I am waiting on parts here is my dudes number'.

          (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.

          • (Score: 2) by MrGuy on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:46PM

            by MrGuy (1007) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:46PM (#126907)

            Except...that's not the case. At least, not when it comes SPECIFICALLY to the broken piece being a brake light, according to this court.

            Because brake lights are "stop lamps" and therefore have a different set of rules than "rear lamps."

            The rules you site apply specifically to Rear Lamps (according to your first line).

            Realize - the sum total of the cop's "ignorance" of the law is assuming the same thing you did. That this section of the law applied to brake lights.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:21PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:21PM (#126920)

              IF you had kept reading...

              (c) Stoplights shall conform to the requirements of G.S. 20-129(g). A stoplight shall not be approved if:

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @08:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @08:57PM (#126989)

          Yeah, I mean lets not throw this guy in jail because he didn't understand the law.

          Oh, wait, that isn't what we are debating, we are debating if someone else should be thrown in jail because this other guy misunderstood the law.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:55AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:55AM (#126784)

      The ruling ultimately says if a police officer makes a *reasonable* mistake (thinking it's always illegal to have a busted tail light) then it's okay.

      And yet that's often not true for normal people. Why are cops given so much leeway? If anything, they should be given less, because as authority figures with legal powers others do not have, they should be held to a higher standard.

    • (Score: 1) by VitalMoss on Wednesday December 17 2014, @12:19PM

      by VitalMoss (3789) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @12:19PM (#126826)

      That's exactly what they should have to do. If police officers wish to have authority, they need to know what grants them that authority.

      If they are in charge of enforcing laws, they have to KNOW THEM. Plain and simple. The man charged with possession of cocaine should have charges dropped.

      It sounds unreasonable, but so does having so many laws that you can't remember them all, eh?

      • (Score: 1) by slash2phar on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:02PM

        by slash2phar (623) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:02PM (#126854)

        It sounds unreasonable, but so does having so many laws that you can't remember them all, eh?

        Bingo.

    • (Score: 1) by slash2phar on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:16PM

      by slash2phar (623) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:16PM (#126856)

      Also, keep this in mind: Just being arrested does NOT mean you're guilty in the USA.

      Perhaps.. but even arrest without conviction has an enduring negative impact [newsmax.com] thanks to background checks [lac.org].

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:34PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:34PM (#126872) Journal

      Also, keep this in mind: Just being arrested does NOT mean you're guilty in the USA. Cops are not judges.

      Indeed? The key lesson for me and many millions of other Americans and people around the world is that in the United States, cops are now judge, jury, and executioner.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:52PM (#126910)

      Wait a fucking minute. Your argument is complete shit. Citizens are expected to know all of the stupid ass laws at both the state and federal level despite having no reason to know them. Failure to know these laws can result in fines or imprisonment. Yet, those charged with enforcing the law (i.e. the police) aren't? Now that's some backwards ass logic.

      Are you a former cop or related to one? Something is wrong here.

      Fuck this noise!

    • (Score: 1) by mgcarley on Saturday December 20 2014, @02:42PM

      by mgcarley (2753) on Saturday December 20 2014, @02:42PM (#127744) Homepage

      Tell that to the police to arrested me, impounded my car and hauled me off to jail for driving without a license... despite the fact that I produced my valid license (which just happens to be from another country, because as I'm not a US resident, I'm not eligible for a local license) AND all the documentation for my just-purchased car, including the title and insurance I'd obtained *that afternoon*.

      The net result was that I had to stay in the US for longer than I hoped which was a significant inconvenience to me because I was given a court date and instructed not to leave the state lest I become a felon, and attempts to resolve the situation early by sending faxes to the local DA or whatever they're called yielded no result. When I went to court, I contested and won (and I am now suing the PD for damages), but still, not a pleasant experience.

      I believe it was a shakedown, banditry or even blatant highway robbery - in part because I was asked how much money I had on me, and in part because it turns out that the PD in question got nearly 2% of the amount of surplus military equipment given to the state for a population of about 1,000 people - something like $1.7 million out of around $97 million worth (and I'd be willing to bet that nobody would be surprised to learn that I'm talking about Illinois).

      Both myself and the arresting officer were white but now having now read a few stories about similar incidents American police, I can see why riots are going on - it would REALLY have sucked if I was black. Fuck those guys - if I ever get stopped again, I'm not opening my window more than 4 or 5 centimeters - enough for them to hear me and nothing more because I have exactly zero trust in them now (not that I thought they were knights in shining armour before).

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai. We're in India (hayai.in) & the USA (hayaibroadband.com) // Twitter: @mgcarley
      • (Score: 2) by Daiv on Monday December 22 2014, @01:58PM

        by Daiv (3940) on Monday December 22 2014, @01:58PM (#128315)

        First, I NEVER said to trust police. Don't. Ever. Trust. Police.

        Second, your situation sucks. I'm glad you won in contesting their charges. Now publicize the hell out of what they did and get the media to tell your story to anyone who will listen. If you don't make it known what they did so it can be rectified, they will probably do it again. Your case could be yet ANOTHER refinement in the system I already acknowledged was flawed.

        Good luck!

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:57AM

    by frojack (1554) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:57AM (#126709) Journal

    “Just as an individual generally cannot escape criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “so too the government cannot impose criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law.”

    Hmmm, read the "glass half full way", that says if you were following the law AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT", no less than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court just said the government can't impose criminal liability. Doesn't matter if you were wrong.

    That's a pretty big hurdle for some podunk magistrate to get past, No?
    .
    .
    /me, puts wishful thinking hat back on the shelf.... slinks away.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @11:17AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @11:17AM (#126818)

      “Just as an individual generally cannot escape criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law,”

      in other words: if you're in the wrong, you're wrong. Don't matter if you realised it.

      "so too the government cannot impose criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law.”

      In other words: if we're wrong, that's okay. We can't be holding ourselves accountable for that, come on, it's an honest mistake!

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:11AM

    by MrGuy (1007) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:11AM (#126714)

    I know it's unpopular, but let's look at the ACTUAL facts of the search, rather than make them up.

    The case arose from a traffic stop in North Carolina based on a broken brake light. But state law there required only a single working “stop lamp,” which the car in question had...
    (snip)
    The case concerned a 2009 traffic stop near Dobson, N.C., conducted by Sgt. Matt Darisse. The car’s owner, Nicholas B. Heien, who had been asleep in the back seat while a friend drove, consented to a search. Sergeant Darisse found a sandwich bag containing cocaine.

    Emphasis mine

    So, an officer pulled over a car that he mistakenly thought was violating traffic laws. The car was in fact not, so the car probably should not have been pulled over.

    However, the officer didn't go farther than that. He did NOT search the car based on his understanding of the traffic law (right or wrong). He ASKED PERMISSION to search the car, and PERMISSION WAS GRANTED. Clearly, it was foolish for the defendant to grant such permission, but the fact remains the search was conducted with consent.

    This isn't a renegade cop who refuses to learn the law, and goes around searching any house or car he wants "just because" with some kind of "didn't know better" immunity. This isn't willful ignorance trampling a suspect's rights.

    At best, you could argue the cop and the car owner should probably never have had the conversation, because the traffic stop should never have happened. But the underlying legal question is whether, given the cop DID mistakenly pull the car over, should that mistake IPSO FACTO NEGATE the findings of a search of a vehicle conducted with voluntary consent?

    I'm no fan of a lot of the judiciary's recent rulings on privacy and the 4th amendment, but this one doesn't seem in any way unreasonable to me. If the officer had searched the car without consent, or broken into the car when it was parked, we'd be having a very different conversation.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by darkfeline on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:22AM

      by darkfeline (1030) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:22AM (#126718) Homepage

      The facts of a specific case are all nice and dandy, but what about the inevitable liberal "interpretations" (abuses) that this ruling will be used for?

      --
      Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by deathlyslow on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:55AM

        by deathlyslow (2818) <wmasmith@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:55AM (#126783)

        That's what the appellate courts are for. They can try to have the ruling looked at to get it narrowed if it becomes a problem.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:42AM

      by frojack (1554) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:42AM (#126724) Journal

      This isn't a renegade cop who refuses to learn the law, and goes around searching any house or car he wants "just because" with some kind of "didn't know better" immunity. This isn't willful ignorance trampling a suspect's rights.

      On the contrary, I think it is both a renegade cop who was looking for ANY excuse to search that car. (Renegade, but with full connect of his department.

      Broken tail light was just low hanging fruit. He would have found something, anything by just following a block or two. Signaled too late, signaled too early, didn't look both ways before starting after a stop, rolled a stop on an unbusy street. Anything.

      And the threat was probably more than suggested that if they said, "No, not today Officer, we have places to be, we can't submit to a search", there would be a car impound until a warrant was obtained.

      Chances are also very good that this was a case of Parallel construction [wikipedia.org] and the cop already knew there were drugs in the car, because he found out from illegal means, and the tail-light was just enough of an excuse for a stop.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by MrGuy on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:05AM

        by MrGuy (1007) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:05AM (#126735)

        Care to cite a source other than your own paranoia for any of your assertions (notably, the cop knowing in advance there were drugs in the car) being fact in this case?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:34AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:34AM (#126750)

          I think the parallel construction thing is bullshit because this is so low level. The NSA isn't going to waste their time on a chickenshit case like this. We aren't that totalitarian yet.

          But, I am totally willing to believe that the cop was just looking for an excuse. The driver was hispanic (last name Vasquez), the state was north carolina, the chance that racial bias was involved is not far-fetched. [unc.edu]

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 17 2014, @11:09PM

            by frojack (1554) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @11:09PM (#127020) Journal

            The AC opines...

            I think the parallel construction thing is bullshit because this is so low level. The NSA isn't going to waste their time on a chickenshit case like this. We aren't that totalitarian yet.

            Wait, parallel construction is not solely the province of the NSA.

            All it would take is a DEA agent, or an under cover sheriff's agent, or a tip from a confidential informant, or any such source that the Officer was not in a position to call to testify.

            So they make a traffic stop knowing that there are drugs on board, (from some source or another), and ask to search.

            All they are looking for is ANY Excuse to stop a car they know has drugs on board.

            Not saying that was the case here, just that it happens ever single day. More-so among minorities as you pointed out.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:45PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:45PM (#126880) Journal

        Chances are also very good that this was a case of Parallel construction [wikipedia.org] and the cop already knew there were drugs in the car, because he found out from illegal means, and the tail-light was just enough of an excuse for a stop.

        You have made a very important point. One consequence of all we have learned and experienced about the heavy hand of government the Powers-That-Be in the last year is that the police and no part of our justice system to the very top deserves the benefit of the doubt anymore. We *know*, not just guess or suspect, that those in law "enforcement" are and have been engaged in a whole-sale violation of our most sacred laws for a very long time. A great many people have looked the other way on that, or pretended it wasn't happening, because it was happening to "other" people. Now we know it's happening to all of us, all the time, everywhere.

        Does America now rise, or fall?

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @11:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @11:26PM (#127028)

        While walking, I was hit by a car that rolled through a stop sign on an unbusy street. I was 3/4 of the way across the street. Fuck you for thinking that its ok to disregard some rules when you think they're too inconvenient.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:45AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:45AM (#126729)

      Yes, this is very true. Consent was given to search, and so the search should be valid. You are right. That the guy got busted for coke possession doesn't trouble me, but the ancillary precedent established regarding reasonable suspicion based on a faulty understanding of the law could later arise in another case, in another form, and so it still worth debate, and that's why the article was posted, I think. I think too that we will see other cases that arise from an officer's faulty understanding of the law, and that the issue will be less clear cut in the future, except that future cases will have reference to this decision. The relevant section from the opinion:

      Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on either ground.

      To me, this points to one of the major failings of legal systems throughout history (and addressed by Thomas More in the first half of his Utopia, as well as by other lawyers throughout history): that the law is too complex for ordinary citizens to comprehend. That is, after all, why there are legal specialists (lawyers) and why a man who defends himself "has a fool for a client." There's an inherent unfairness to that complexity, in that the citizen is bound to a code of conduct that he is fully expected not to be able to understand well enough to defend himself, should he be suspected of violating that code. If the police, who presumably have some legal training and are expected to enforce the laws, are also not expected to understand the laws they enforce, the unfairness facing the citizen becomes all the more pronounced. In this case, I regard the cocaine bust as irrelevant, and the stop for the broken taillight as the only interesting part of the case, since it's an index of the degree to which even basic laws like vehicle safety regulations are more complex than citizens or even police understand. If laws were simpler, fewer in number, and more consistent across jurisdictions, it would be more reasonable to expect both the police and the citizens to understand them fully. An optimal (or rather Utopian) system of laws would be so simple, brief, and consistent that no lawyers would be necessary: every citizen could defend himself; we'll never achieve that, but we should aim to reduce complexity to the point where those who enforce the laws do not receive a pass on their understanding of the laws, as happened in this case.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:58AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:58AM (#126785)

      Cops have a funny definition of consent. Scaring and intimidating people until they "consent" wouldn't be reasonably considered as "consent" in a just society.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:51PM (#126885)

      So the cops have just been given a huge blank check to pull anyone over, anytime, and pretext the stop because they 'thought' that X was not legal after the fact. Instead of, you know, expecting that the cops would be required to KNOW what law they're detaining somebody over and be held to the same standard of care as any other profession.

      The interpretation is not unreasonable, though goes completely against the spirit that it is better to let the guilty go free than let the innocent suffer. The ways it will be abused make it absolute horseshit.

  • (Score: 2) by fnj on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:21AM

    by fnj (1654) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:21AM (#126717)

    Roberts drifted into dementia and authoritarian tool some time ago.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by iWantToKeepAnon on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:48PM

    by iWantToKeepAnon (686) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:48PM (#126933) Homepage Journal

    the Supreme Court has ruled that "A police officer can stop a car based on a mistaken understanding of the law without violating the Fourth Amendment."

    I thought a cop could pull you over just to say Hi. And being pulled over isn't a 4th amendment violation; the 4th prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" not unreasonable pull overs.

    Note to crooks: if you have coke in the car don't consent just cuz a cop asks.

    --
    "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
    • (Score: 2) by Leebert on Thursday December 18 2014, @04:25AM

      by Leebert (3511) on Thursday December 18 2014, @04:25AM (#127073)

      And being pulled over isn't a 4th amendment violation; the 4th prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" not unreasonable pull overs.

      Being pulled over is absolutely a seizure. But when supported by "specific and articulable facts", it's not illegal in the context of conducting an investigation. Read up on Terry Stops. The standard is "reasonable suspicion".

  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 17 2014, @08:20PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @08:20PM (#126985) Journal

    Let's look at Roberts' words for a minute here....

    “Just as an individual generally cannot escape criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “so too the government cannot impose criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law.”

    So, that all sounds vaguely reasonable, until you fill in a couple of implied subjects.

    "Just as an individual generally cannot escape criminal liability based on [that individual's] mistaken understanding of the law,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “so too the government cannot impose criminal liability [on government agents] based on [the agent's] mistaken understanding of the law.”

    If we abstract those away a bit further, we get:

    "[X] cannot escape criminal liability based on [X's] mistaken understanding of the law”
    and
    "Cannot impose criminal liability [on Y] based on [Y's] misunderstanding of the law.”

    Doubleplusgood doublespeak from minijustice! The only possible conclusion is that X != Y. That cops are above the law and the rest of us are second-class citizens.