wayneflorida 0 #1 October 3, 2014 https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/supreme-court-consider-whether-police-ignorance-law-justifies-stop I think the SC will go with the police on this one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #2 October 3, 2014 1 - cops should know the law. Ignorance of the law is a terrible excuse for those that work in the industry as professionals. However: 2 - if it was an innocent miss. As a minimum, he needs to be retrained and tested on it. At least as far as his duties are concerned. Then if it happens twice, we move to #3 2.1 - I think the same leniency should be applied for people being stopped also. So many laws are too random to just be able to know via common sense. Subjective issues like this (that didn't result in another citizen suffering any type of hardshipt) should be handled with a warning only the first time. repeat offenses after a warning then it's not ignorance, it's on purpose. I don't see cops do this, but I do see this very often and fairly if you go plea the situation (window tint, too big of a license plate frame, etc etc etc) - except in greedy left wing districts that cook tickets for more revenue. 3 - if it's an excuse and he really did know, then it's crooked 4 - I don't see how we tell if #2 or #3 is the truth 5 - regardless, the local cops now know that the driver carries drugs and they can't do anything about this instance. However, in the future....... 6 - You're pretty much an idiot to be carrying serious drugs with you and have stupid potential issues with your car's safety and warning equipment. They shouldn't worry about this guy, he'll get caught anyway, hopefully he doesn't dope up a minor or get into an accident or something in the meantime. Perhaps someone wishes to strawman my comments with a quote "oh - your Honor - I had no idea that beating a guy with a stick and taking his wallet was illegal" and claim that's what I mean in #2.1 ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobParker 0 #3 October 3, 2014 Seems like an honest mistake. A reasonable person would believe that a missing tail light is an infraction, and therefore legitimate cause for a traffic stop. So the drugs found as a result of that, shouldn't be ignored... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #4 October 3, 2014 BobParkerSeems like an honest mistake. A reasonable person would believe that a missing tail light is an infraction, and therefore legitimate cause for a traffic stop. So the drugs found as a result of that, shouldn't be ignored... no, the drugs have to be ignored....this time seems the only correct answer - even though it sucks Too late for the cop to provide any additional evidence that the stop was warranted otherwise... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #5 October 3, 2014 Quote A reasonable person would believe that a missing tail light is an infraction, and therefore legitimate cause for a traffic stop. But the applicable standard in this situation is not one of "reasonable person"; it's one of "reasonable professional police officer". Police officers are charged with the duty to know the applicable laws, especially something as frequently invoked in the field as traffic laws, that do and do not exist in their jurisdiction, that they are empowered to enforce. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #6 October 3, 2014 QuoteI think the SC will go with the police on this one. If they do it'll be a 5-4 decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #7 October 3, 2014 Quote A reasonable person would believe that a missing tail light is an infraction, A) a reasonable person whose professional responsibility it is to know the applicable laws? B) if we allow your assertion, so what? 30 years ago most reasonable police believed that if you had someone you knew was guilty and smacked them around a bit until they confessed, it was a legitimate use of power. Believing doesn't make it so.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgriff 0 #8 October 3, 2014 rehmwa2.1 - I think the same leniency should be applied for people being stopped also. So many laws are too random to just be able to know via common sense. Subjective issues like this (that didn't result in another citizen suffering any type of hardshipt) should be handled with a warning only the first time. Or, and I know this is a radical concept, we could try this... Stop pretending that "victimless crime" is actually crime... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #9 October 3, 2014 > Stop pretending that "victimless crime" is actually crime... Oh, I think driving home so drunk you can't see is still a crime even if you don't hit anyone. We have all agreed that some behaviors (firing a gun into a crowd, driving drunk, starting forest fires, dumping poison in drinking water supplies) are crimes even if no one is directly a victim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 October 3, 2014 Andy9o8QuoteI think the SC will go with the police on this one. If they do it'll be a 5-4 decision. there has been a long running trend that the fruits of innocent error are admissible evidence. Particularly if the guy consented to the search (that article did not say), tough luck for him. it does stretch credibility that a LEO didn't know a basic aspect of the vehicle code - certainly feel like a pretext to go on a fishing expedition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,341 #11 October 3, 2014 kelpdiver***QuoteI think the SC will go with the police on this one. If they do it'll be a 5-4 decision. there has been a long running trend that the fruits of innocent error are admissible evidence. Particularly if the guy consented to the search (that article did not say), tough luck for him. it does stretch credibility that a LEO didn't know a basic aspect of the vehicle code - certainly feel like a pretext to go on a fishing expedition. Well, it's really hard (IMO) to call ignorance of the laws the cop is supposed to be enforcing an "innocent error." Or, as is the phrase I've heard more often, "Good Faith." It doesn't, however surprise me that the cop didn't know what the vehicle code was. I can tell you a bunch of horror stories about that kind of stuff. Although there are a couple of good ones: A guy in NJ had a car that was old enough to qualify for "classic" plates. That meant he didn't need the annual inspection (or it's accompanying windshield sticker). The cop flat out refused to listen to the simple fact that classic plates meant an exemption from the sticker requirement and wrote a ticket (even threatened to have the car towed if the driver didn't shut up). So it went to court. Ticket was dismissed immediately. And the judge was unimpressed that the cop's ignorance was wasting the court's time. And the judge gave a rather scathing lecture on the need for the cop to actually know the laws he was enforcing."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #12 October 4, 2014 Here is an interesting case from a few years back (2006) here in Georgia. A state trooper ticketed a woman for "violating a state law prohibiting lewd or profane stickers and decals on vehicles". The offending bumper sticker said "I'm Tired Of All The BUSHIT". The problem was, the state supreme court had throw out the law as unconstitutional over a decade before. Another problem was that despite the court ruling the law was still listed as valid in the Georgia Law Enforcement Handbook, which is used to train law enforcement officers. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #13 October 4, 2014 Andy9o8 Quote I think the SC will go with the police on this one. If they do it'll be a 5-4 decision. LMAO - I think that SC will go against the cop too. But I read the OP as Speakers CornerYeah - I'm dumb sometimes.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #14 October 4, 2014 turtlespeed . But I read the OP as Speakers Corner If so, I expect there would have been a pole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #15 October 4, 2014 headoverheels *** . But I read the OP as Speakers Corner If so, I expect there would have been a pole. Where would it be put? Maybe we should have a poll.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #16 October 4, 2014 turtlespeed ****** . But I read the OP as Speakers Corner If so, I expect there would have been a pole. Where would it be put? Maybe we should have a poll.I thought he meant theonlyski. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #17 October 4, 2014 Andy9o8 ********* . But I read the OP as Speakers Corner If so, I expect there would have been a pole. Where would it be put? Maybe we should have a poll.I thought he meant theonlyski. Why? What do cookies have to do with it?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgriff 0 #18 October 6, 2014 billvonOh, I think driving home so drunk you can't see is still a crime even if you don't hit anyone. We have all agreed that some behaviors (firing a gun into a crowd, driving drunk, starting forest fires, dumping poison in drinking water supplies) are crimes even if no one is directly a victim. I disagree that no one is injured in several those examples, however, I was referring more to drug possession. This country is addicted to legislation. We've got so much now that no one can possible read or know it all, and the vast majority is doing NOTHING... well, nothing positive, anyway. The war on drugs has been a godsend for criminals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #19 October 6, 2014 Quote This country is addicted to legislation. Right on, bro! There oughta be a law! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
