Supreme Court Says Ignorance Of The Law Is An Excuse — If You’re A Cop

[The Joker]

There is one simple concept that law students learn in their very first weeks of criminal law class: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This principle means that when an individual violates the law, it doesn’t matter whether or not they knew what the law said. If it’s a crime, and they are found to have committed the elements of that crime, they are guilty.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the same standard doesn’t necessarily apply to police. In a splintered 8-1 ruling, the court found that cops who pulled over Nicholas Heien for a broken taillight were justified in a subsequent search of Heien’s car, even though North Carolina law says that having just one broken taillight is not a violation of the law.

The ruling means that police did not violate Heien’s rights when they later searched his car and found cocaine, and that the cocaine evidence can’t be suppressed at a later trial. But it also means that the U.S. Supreme Court declined the opportunity to draw a line limiting the scope of police stops, at a time when they are as rampant and racially disproportionate as ever.

Instead, police may have considerably more leeway to stop passengers on the road, even in a number of jurisdictions that had previously said cops are not justified in mistakes of law.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...takes-about-the-law-wont-stop-your-drug-bust/

Discuss

 

[whatdidyousay!]

If someone is going be having drugs in their car they should made sure they have no reason for a cop pulling them over. I have herd of this happen before a person getting pulled over for traffic violation ad getting busted for having drugs on them . Not too bright!

 

[Angel1989]

I'm not familiar with this case but I agree with WDYS. The cops probably felt the driver was acting suspicious and searched the car.

Not a problem for most law abiding citizens. If you get caught with illegal drugs in your car, don't complain that the cop pulled you over and found your drugs.

 

[whatdidyousay!]

I'm not familiar with this case but I agree with WDYS. The cops probably felt the driver was acting suspicious and searched the car.

Not a problem for most law abiding citizens. If you get caught with illegal drugs in your car, don't complain that the cop pulled you over and found your drugs.

Yeah I got stopped b/c my taillight was out and the cop told me to get in fix and let go on my way. The cop asked me if I knew why he pulled me over and I told I did not know why and he was fine with that answer.

 

[jonnyghost]

I'm not familiar with this case but I agree with WDYS. The cops probably felt the driver was acting suspicious and searched the car.

Not a problem for most law abiding citizens. If you get caught with illegal drugs in your car, don't complain that the cop pulled you over and found your drugs.

Suspicion is not legal grounds for a search. They must have probable cause. They may use a drug dog outside of your car to sniff out drugs though. If the drug dog signals that would be probabal cause.

 

[jonnyghost]

Hard to belive it was 8 to 1. Very sad.

 

[diehardbiker]

http://www.echo.net.au/2014/12/thousands-falsely-identified-sniffer-drug-dogs/

http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/new-mexico-pigs-perform-14-hour-cavity-search-on-innocent-man

As far as I know, nobody in America should go above the law. Police should never be allowed above the law, guess DOJ thinks otherwise... Sad! Yes, I disagree with judge decision.

 

[The Joker]

This is why New Yorkers are upset with the NYPD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNNdCmWGdNI
Even Mayor de Blasio is upset with the NYPD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IioERnW9LZ8

 

[Jiro]

Even Mayor de Blasio is upset with the NYPD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IioERnW9LZ8

Mayor de Blasio? upset with NYPD?

he's a politician! his job is to make voters calm and happy.

 

[Jiro]

only one judge disagreed with it.... just.... wow... only one???? truly sad....

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is a former prosecutor, has significant concerns with the scope of this holding.

“One wonders how a citizen seeking to be law-abiding and to structure his or her behavior to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters could do so,” she wrote. She also noted the “human consequences,” “including those for communities and for their relationships with the police” of broader leeway for police stops, seemingly making reference to current outrage over police brutality and community mistrust.

She doesn’t think it makes any sense to apply a lesser standard to stops than to convictions. And she doesn’t like the vague, permissive standard that will likely result in “murky” application of the law.

Perhaps most importantly, Sotomayor points out that the cost of prohibiting stops when officers actually make a mistake of the law would be very small, compared to a potentially great consequences of allowing them to do so. After all, when cops mistakenly pull someone over in a circumstance like that in this case, they suffer no consequence. The only result is that the evidence they collect cannot be used in a later prosecution. When cops mistakenly pull over citizens, a subsequent drug prosecution is one of just a number of adverse consequences that can follow.