<snip>
In April 2009, a Surry County (N.C.) law enforcement officer stopped a car traveling on Interstate 77, allegedly because of a brake light which at first failed to illuminate and then flickered on. The officer mistakenly believed that state law prohibited driving a car with one broken brake light. In fact, the state traffic law requires only one working brake light. Nevertheless, operating under a mistaken understanding of the law, during the course of the stop, the officer asked for permission to search the car. Nicholas Heien, the owner of the vehicle, granted his consent to a search. Upon the officer finding cocaine in the vehicle, he arrested and charged Heien with trafficking. Prior to his trial, Heien moved to suppress the evidence seized in light of the fact that the officer’s pretext for the stop was erroneous and therefore unlawful. Although the trial court denied the motion to suppress evidence, the state court of appeals determined that since the police officer had based his initial stop of the car on a mistaken understanding of the law, there was no valid reason for the stop in the first place. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that even though the officer was wrong in concluding that the inoperable brake light was an offense, because the officer’s mistake was a “reasonable” one, the stop of the car did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the evidence resulting from the stop did not need to be suppressed. In weighing in on the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Rutherford Institute attorneys warn against allowing government agents to “benefit” from their mistakes of law, deliberate or otherwise, lest it become an incentive for abuse.
<snip>
Ignorance of the law defence for me (the po po), but not for thee?
Desubot wrote: "Nicholas Heien, the owner of the vehicle, granted his consent to a search."
Whats the problem?
The stop should never have happened in the first place?
Which is odd... Even IF I've ever been pulled over for a taillight or head light out, it's always been a, "hey, your light is out, here's a paper warning.... you should get it done as soon as possible"
Desubot wrote: I guess.
Lucky for me i don't drive around with bags of cocaine so i should be k.
Ignorance of the law isn't a defense you (or anyone for that matter) can use yet this is what the cop is pleading; the cocaine is irrelevant to problem. This is about whether the police can break the law for funsies or lulz and not be accountable, not whether you feel better than a guy who had some cocaine in his car.
A policeman can pull your car over any time for a random check in the UK, typically they ask to see licence and maybe insurance or tax. It's not common, but if it's a quiet night or you do anything to draw their attention you might get a random stop. If you consent to a search of the car that's your lookout.
Pulling somebody over for a traffic stop or questioning isn't illegal, and doesn't require the person to be committing illegal behavior in order to be stopped. Arresting the person without cause or justification is what's illegal.
If he had pulled her over then arrested her both without cause then it should have been thrown out. However he pulled the driver over, asked to do a search which the driver consented to, at which point he discovered that the driver was engaged in illegal activity via possession of cocaine. The driver had every right to say no to the search and unless there were obvious signs of probable cause the officer would not have been able to legally search the car.
If you have drugs or something else that's illegal don't consent to the officer searching you or your car. All bets are off if they are actively arresting you for something else, but simply refusing a search is not legal grounds for them to arrest you.
Couldn't this also qualify as the officer "acting in good faith?"
I can easily see this happening where the officer fully intended to simply let the person know their brakelight wasn't working, but started picking up on certain visual/audio cues from the driver that something more may be amiss and then asked to conduct a search.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Couldn't this also qualify as the officer "acting in good faith?"
I can easily see this happening where the officer fully intended to simply let the person know their brakelight wasn't working, but started picking up on certain visual/audio cues from the driver that something more may be amiss and then asked to conduct a search.
"acting in good faith"???
Show me the legal statute describing this...
Fact is, the officer had no cause to stop that driver.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Couldn't this also qualify as the officer "acting in good faith?"
I can easily see this happening where the officer fully intended to simply let the person know their brakelight wasn't working, but started picking up on certain visual/audio cues from the driver that something more may be amiss and then asked to conduct a search.
Just typing "officer acting" into Google auto fills the rest and that is the first result. True, the wiki states the doctrine is specific to search warrants, but I would think the same idea applies.
Edit: I just skimmed a few more articles, and the doctrine applies to more than just defective search warrants.
whembly wrote: Fact is, the officer had no cause to stop that driver.
Of course they did. "Excuse me sir, one of your brake lights is out, you really should get that replaced". And that's where it would have ended if the driver hadn't been an absolute ing idiot and agreed to a search when transporting illegal drugs. It's not like the cops pulled the guy over on a pretense and then forced a search against the driver's protests, a situation where probable cause would have been required and the evidence should be thrown out. I don't see why probable cause should be an issue if you effectively walk up to a cop and say "I'm guilty, please arrest me".
whembly wrote: Fact is, the officer had no cause to stop that driver.
Of course they did. "Excuse me sir, one of your brake lights is out, you really should get that replaced". And that's where it would have ended if the driver hadn't been an absolute ing idiot and agreed to a search when transporting illegal drugs. It's not like the cops pulled the guy over on a pretense and then forced a search against the driver's protests, a situation where probable cause would have been required and the evidence should be thrown out. I don't see why probable cause should be an issue if you effectively walk up to a cop and say "I'm guilty, please arrest me".
You missed the part where state law only requires one operating brake light on a vehicle, so the officer had no cause to stop the driver. In doing so, he violated her Fourth Amendment rights.
whembly wrote: Fact is, the officer had no cause to stop that driver.
Of course they did. "Excuse me sir, one of your brake lights is out, you really should get that replaced". And that's where it would have ended if the driver hadn't been an absolute ing idiot and agreed to a search when transporting illegal drugs. It's not like the cops pulled the guy over on a pretense and then forced a search against the driver's protests, a situation where probable cause would have been required and the evidence should be thrown out. I don't see why probable cause should be an issue if you effectively walk up to a cop and say "I'm guilty, please arrest me".
You missed the part where state law only requires one operating brake light on a vehicle, so the officer had no cause to stop the driver. In doing so, he violated her Fourth Amendment rights.
You could argue that a vehicle with an inoperable taillight is a safety hazard, and thus is deserving of at least a notification that the light is out.
You could argue that a vehicle with an inoperable taillight is a safety hazard, and thus is deserving of at least a notification that the light is out.
Maybe, but it's pretty clear that she was not in violation of the state's traffic law. Even if it was a "complimentary stop," it wouldn't have warranted a request to search the vehicle.
A police officer doesn't need a reason to request a search. You can decline the request, and IIRC you can also choose to stop the search at any time as well.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You missed the part where state law only requires one operating brake light on a vehicle, so the officer had no cause to stop the driver. In doing so, he violated her Fourth Amendment rights.
Grey Templar wrote: A police officer doesn't need a reason to request a search. You can decline the request, and IIRC you can also choose to stop the search at any time as well.
It was a perfectly lawful search.
No, because it occurred after an unlawful detainment (the traffic stop). Vehicles cannot be randomly stopped and searched and they need probable cause to search any area of the vehicle not in plain sight. Since she was stopped for no reason (because she was violating no state traffic law) and the contraband seized from her vehicle was not in plain sight, she had her Constitutional rights violated.
You don't have to agree, but that's the beauty of it; it doesn't matter because everything is written pretty plainly. The officer was wrong, admitted to ignorance of the law, violated a citizen's constitutional rights, and got away with it.
It's the present participle of the word "operate." It is used as an adjective to describe the way a machine, vehicle, device, etc. functions or is used and controlled.
In this case, if the driver of a vehicle applies pressure to the brake pedal, a brake light (or two, or three) will illuminate on the vehicle to alert other drivers to a braking vehicle. If a braking action is taken, under North Carolina traffic law, there should be at least operable brake light on the vehicle.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Maybe, but it's pretty clear that she was not in violation of the state's traffic law.
So? Offering helpful safety advice is a legitimate thing for a cop to do. Even if it's legal to drive with only one working brake light you should get it fixed since, if nothing else, it makes a complete failure in the future a lot more likely.
Even if it was a "complimentary stop," it wouldn't have warranted a request to search the vehicle.
Why does it matter if the request is justified? The driver was free to refuse the search for any reason (and even without giving a reason at all). Justification for a search only matters if the police force you to submit to the search against your will. If you're stupid enough to allow a search instead of saying "no" I don't see why you have any right to complain about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Vehicles cannot be randomly stopped and searched and they need probable cause to search any area of the vehicle not in plain sight.
You need probable cause to FORCE a search. You do NOT need probable cause to search after the owner of the vehicle says "you can search it". Complaining about probable cause in this situation makes about as much sense as complaining about it after you walk up to a cop, hand them a package of drugs, and say "please arrest me for possessing this".
The officer was wrong, admitted to ignorance of the law, violated a citizen's constitutional rights, and got away with it.
What right was violated? The right to not be pulled over for a bad reason? Because the right to not be searched without probable cause certainly wasn't violated in this situation.
No, because it occurred after an unlawful detainment (the traffic stop). Vehicles cannot be randomly stopped and searched and they need probable cause to search any area of the vehicle not in plain sight. Since she was stopped for no reason (because she was violating no state traffic law) and the contraband seized from her vehicle was not in plain sight, she had her Constitutional rights violated.
I think you are missing a vital step here" "Since she was stopped for no reason (because she was violating no state traffic law) and the contraband seized from her vehicle"
that should read:
He was stopped, consented to a search for no reason and the contraband seized from his vehicle.
Police can stop you without needing to violate a traffic law. They can do it for a variety of reasons like safety checks or courtesy checks. However unless you are doing something illegal you are free to leave. In this driver's case they were an idiot and not aware of their rights and consented to a search. (maybe impaired judgement from drug usage?)
WHAT TO DO IF YOU'RE STOPPED BY POLICE, IMMIGRATION AGENTS OR THE FBI
YOUR RIGHTS
- You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, say so out loud.
- You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car or your home.
- If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.
- You have the right to a lawyer if you are arrested. Ask for one immediately.
- Regardless of your immigration or citizenship status, you have constitutional rights.
IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR QUESTIONING
Stay calm. Don't run. Don't argue, resist or obstruct the police, even if you are innocent or police are violating your rights. Keep your hands where police can see them.
Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, calmly and silently walk away. If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why.
You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud. In some states, you must give your name if asked to identify yourself.
You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings, but police may "pat down" your clothing if they suspect a weapon. You should not physically resist, but you have the right to refuse consent for any further search. If you do consent, it can affect you later in court.
IF YOU ARE STOPPED IN YOUR CAR
Stop the car in a safe place as quickly as possible. Turn off the car, turn on the internal light, open the window part way and place your hands on the wheel.
Upon request, show police your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance.
If an officer or immigration agent asks to look inside your car, you can refuse to consent to the search. But if police believe your car contains evidence of a crime, your car can be searched without your consent.
Both drivers and passengers have the right to remain silent. If you are a passenger, you can ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, sit silently or calmly leave. Even if the officer says no, you have the right to remain silent.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You missed the part where state law only requires one operating brake light on a vehicle, so the officer had no cause to stop the driver. In doing so, he violated her Fourth Amendment rights.
I agree. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that the police need probable cause just to pull you over, period - anything that is produced subsequent to an unlawful stop is fruit of the poison tree and inadmissible.
Tannhauser's cite of the good faith exception is compelling, though. It's a good case for the court I think. I think I agree with Sotomayer but really it's a case with good arguments on both sides.
Obviously he's a fool for consenting to a search with a carload of blow but that's besides the point.
Grey Templar wrote: A police officer doesn't need a reason to request a search. You can decline the request, and IIRC you can also choose to stop the search at any time as well.
It was a perfectly lawful search.
You can also decline to give a DNA sample, or to allow an officer to search your home or person, or refuse any number of other ostensibly voluntary things when requested to by a police officer. You know what happens then? They immediately conclude that since you're not voluntarily giving up your rights, you must have something to hide, and so pull out one of the many flimsy and demonstrably exploitable pretexts they can use to overrule your refusal.
The fact of the matter is that if the police want to search you, or do anything else, they can. They can suddenly decide you appear intoxicated, or are acting suspiciously, or can detain you temporarily while they collude with a friendly judge to obtain a warrant, and if you refuse to give a sample/your prints you better never leave your home or throw anything away ever again. People like to moan when criminals get off "on a technicality", but the reality is with all the loopholes and "my word against his" tricks the police have at their disposal, those technicalities are the only protections people have, and allowing the police to ignore them by claiming ignorance of the very laws they're supposedly enforcing(while denying ordinary people the same defence) isn't on.
You can also decline to give a DNA sample, or to allow an officer to search your home or person, or refuse any number of other ostensibly voluntary things when requested to by a police officer. You know what happens then? They immediately conclude that since you're not voluntarily giving up your rights, you must have something to hide, and so pull out one of the many flimsy and demonstrably exploitable pretexts they can use to overrule your refusal.
The fact of the matter is that if the police want to search you, or do anything else, they can. They can suddenly decide you appear intoxicated, or are acting suspiciously, or can detain you temporarily while they collude with a friendly judge to obtain a warrant, and if you refuse to give a sample/your prints you better never leave your home or throw anything away ever again. People like to moan when criminals get off "on a technicality", but the reality is with all the loopholes and "my word against his" tricks the police have at their disposal, those technicalities are the only protections people have, and allowing the police to ignore them by claiming ignorance of the very laws they're supposedly enforcing(while denying ordinary people the same defence) isn't on.
Do you believe this is the case for the majority? Do you really believe we have to fear 'loopholes' when going about our daily business.
Yodhrin wrote: You can decline. You know what happens then? They immediately conclude that since you're not voluntarily giving up your rights, you must have something to hide, and so pull out one of the many flimsy and demonstrably exploitable pretexts they can use to overrule your refusal.
Do you believe this is the case for the majority? Do you really believe we have to fear 'loopholes' when going about our daily business.
Probably not from most officers, but if something can be abused you can be sure someone's abusing it.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: It's the present participle of the word "operate." It is used as an adjective to describe the way a machine, vehicle, device, etc. functions or is used and controlled.
I asked a simple question. No need to get catty.
When discussing automotive lighting "operating" is a term that requires a specific definition as there are plenty of examples of illegal automotive lights.
Relapse wrote: Something I am wondering is what it was that the officer saw that caused him to make the request.
Word from a few "Blue friends", not on this situation (as I haven't talked to one of them in years now), is that quite often times, people who are doing some seriously illegal stuff, like transporting cocaine, give off some serious "vibes".
And by vibes, I of course mean, audio/visual indicators (saying stupid things, like admitting to it... or constantly glancing at one particular spot, or otherwise acting in such a manner that is clear they want things ending quickly)
Relapse wrote: Something I am wondering is what it was that the officer saw that caused him to make the request.
Word from a few "Blue friends", not on this situation (as I haven't talked to one of them in years now), is that quite often times, people who are doing some seriously illegal stuff, like transporting cocaine, give off some serious "vibes".
And by vibes, I of course mean, audio/visual indicators (saying stupid things, like admitting to it... or constantly glancing at one particular spot, or otherwise acting in such a manner that is clear they want things ending quickly)
That makes sense, and pretty much along the lines I was thinking, after hearing the same thing from cops.
As a layperson when it comes to the specific laws at play, it seems to me that this pretty much legit.
The stopping and the search should, IMHO, be viewed as two separate issues.
1. He was pulled over to be informed (or wrongfully fined) that his brake light was broken. This seems to me to be common courtesy, I do it all the time on parking lots and other places I have an opportunity (no, not pulling over but informing).
2. Something in the manner of the person led the officer to be suspicious, he then asked to search the vehicle and was granted. Now when given the permission, it doesn't matter if he had the RIGHT to deny the search. He, in fact, didn't. Thus the search was legal.
This case is, in my opinion, not noteworthy in any way and it's not a violation of any constitutional rights.
HOWEVER, it is very sad that the officer did not know the traffic code he was using and he should be some sort of reprimand on the record for this.
granander wrote: The stopping and the search should, IMHO, be viewed as two separate issues.
Which they can't as you don't get to B without A. The question isn't whether B is illegal, as no one thinks it is, but whether the Police were in a legal position to find out that information in the first place. Breaking the law to enforce the law sort of defeats the purpose of having laws in the first place, or people to enforce it. Here it seems as if they are trying to determine if accidentally breaking the law gets him a mulligan, legally speaking. I don't think anyone is sympathetic for the idiot that allowed a search knowing they had cocaine, but this isn't really about him.
granander wrote: The stopping and the search should, IMHO, be viewed as two separate issues.
Which they can't as you don't get to B without A. The question isn't whether B is illegal, as no one thinks it is, but whether the Police were in a legal position to find out that information in the first place. Breaking the law to enforce the law sort of defeats the purpose of having laws in the first place, or people to enforce it. Here it seems as if they are trying to determine if accidentally breaking the law gets him a mulligan, legally speaking. I don't think anyone is sympathetic for the idiot that allowed a search knowing they had cocaine, but this isn't really about him.
But IS the stopping, in fact, illegal if the intent where to inform about the broken light? If no, then the opportunity is not attained by illegal means but rather the wrongful fining is the only illegal part.
Isn't that part of what the case is trying to determine?
Just by what was reposted here it sounds like it might not be legal, as the law there said the police in that state can't legally stop you if you have a working brake light, which the person did. Whether the police man did it out of the kindness of their heart or whether he pulled them over because they thought they might have something illegal on them and then lied about it, accidentally using a lie that turned out wasn't something he could not actually stop them for, doesn't change that the citizen was slowed down and pulled over by the police illegally (maybe). It also depends on whether that state lets police just pull you over for fun (no legal reason) or if they have to have legal cause.
Seems like the cop making the stop in error should be something more of disciplinary issue than a criminal or constitutional one. Certainly the officer was initially in error here but it wasn't that error that lead to the search, arrest. As presented the basic events of the case seem reasonable to me, the police mad an error but not one of the sort that I'd think overrides consenting to the search.
EDIT: This goes doubly so if the cop had the right to stop someone simply to inform them of the broken light, even if it wasn't in violation of the law. Certainly in the case the cop would still be mistaken and the situation should warrant some level of (minor) disciplinary action. However it'd go double in my mind that this isn't the kind of situation I'd want the law considering a violation of someone's rights.
That said I think we could stand to have stricter guidelines with regards to when police can do things like ask for consent for a search, or at least have some requirement that such requests are accompanied with an explicit statement about the right to refuse.
The state requires that "all originally equipped rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order" be in good working order. Since every vehicle is constructed with 2-3 rear tail lights (brake lights) as worded even one light flickering or being burnt out is grounds to be pulled over and the officer is compelled to take such as it's listed in the law they must do so. The license plate is required to have at least one functioning light, like the tail lights if that plate light is flickering or burnt out is cause (and required) to pull the car over.
Even if it relights a flickering bulb is not in "good working order".
The stop was legal, and the search was certainly legal as the bonehead driver consented.
20-49. Police authority of Division.
The Commissioner and such officers and inspectors of the Division as he shall designate and all members of the Highway Patrol and law enforcement officers of the Department of Public Safety shall have the power:
(1) Of peace officers for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Article and of any other law regulating the operation of vehicles or the use of the highways.
(2) To make arrests upon view and without warrant for any violation committed in their presence of any of the provisions of this Article or other laws regulating the operation of vehicles or the use of the highways.
(3) At all time to direct all traffic in conformance with law, and in the event of a fire or other emergency or to expedite traffic or to insure safety, to direct traffic as conditions may require, notwithstanding the provisions of law.
(4) When on duty, upon reasonable belief that any vehicle is being operated in violation of any provision of this Article or of any other law regulating the operation of vehicles to require the driver thereof to stop and exhibit his driver's license and the registration card issued for the vehicle, and submit to an inspection of such vehicle, the registration plates and registration card thereon or to an inspection and test of the equipment of such vehicle. (5) To inspect any vehicle of a type required to be registered hereunder in any public garage or repair shop or in any place where such vehicles are held for sale or wrecking, for the purpose of locating stolen vehicles and investigating the title and registration thereof.
(6) To serve all warrants relating to the enforcement of the laws regulating the operation of vehicles or the use of the highways.
(7) To investigate traffic accidents and secure testimony of witnesses or of persons involved.
(8) To investigate reported thefts of motor vehicles, trailers and semitrailers and make arrest for thefts thereof.
(9) For the purpose of determining compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, to inspect all files and records of the persons hereinafter designated and required to be kept under the provisions of this Chapter or of the registrations of the Division:
a. Persons dealing in or selling and buying new, used or junked motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts; and
b. Persons operating garages or other places where motor vehicles are repaired, dismantled, or stored. (1937, c. 407, s. 14; 1955, c. 554, s. 1; 1975, c. 716, s. 5; 1979, c. 93; 2002-159, s. 31.5(b); 2002-190, s. 5; 2011-145, s. 19.1(g).)
§ 20-129. Required lighting equipment of vehicles.
(a) When Vehicles Must Be Equipped. - Every vehicle upon a highway within this State shall be equipped with lighted headlamps andrear lamps as required for different classes of vehicles, and subject to exemption with reference to lights on parked vehicles as declared in G.S. 20-134:
(1) During the period from sunset to sunrise,
(2) When there is not sufficient light to render clearly discernible any person on the highway at a distance of 400 feet ahead, or
(3) Repealed by Session Laws 1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 822, s. 1.
(4) At any other time when windshield wipers are in use as a result of smoke, fog, rain, sleet, or snow, or when inclement weather or environmental factors severely reduce the ability to clearly discern persons and vehicles on the street and highway at a distance of 500 feet ahead, provided, however, the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to instances when windshield wipers are used intermittently in misting rain, sleet, or snow. Any person violating this subdivision during the period from October 1, 1990, through December 31, 1991, shall be given a warning of the violation only. Thereafter, any person violating this subdivision shall have committed an infraction and shall pay a fine of five dollars ($5.00) and shall not be assessed court costs. No drivers license points, insurance points or premium surcharge shall be assessed on account of violation of this subdivision and no negligence or liability shall be assessed on or imputed to any party on account of a violation of this subdivision. The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall incorporate into driver education programs and driver licensing programs instruction designed to encourage compliance with this subdivision as an important means of reducing accidents by making vehicles more discernible during periods of limited visibility.
(b) Headlamps on Motor Vehicles. - Every self-propelled motor vehicle other than motorcycles, road machinery, and farm tractors shall be equipped with at least two headlamps, all in good operating condition with at least one on each side of the front of the motor vehicle. Headlamps shall comply with the requirements and limitations set forth in G.S. 20-131 or 20-132.
(c) Headlamps on Motorcycles. - Every motorcycle shall be equipped with at least one and not more than two headlamps which shall comply with the requirements and limitations set forth in G.S. 20-131 or 20-132. The headlamps on a motorcycle shall be lighted at all times while the motorcycle is in operation on highways or public vehicular areas.
(d) Rear Lamps. - Every motor vehicle, and every trailer or semitrailer attached to a motor vehicle and every vehicle which is being drawn at the end of a combination of vehicles, shall have all originally equipped rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order, which lamps shall exhibit a red light plainly visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of 500 feet to the rear of such vehicle. One rear lamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed that the number plate carried on the rear of such vehicle shall under like conditions be illuminated by a white light as to be read from a distance of 50 feet to the rear of such vehicle. Every trailer or semitrailer shall carry at the rear, in addition to the originally equipped lamps, a red reflector of the type which has been approved by the Commissioner and which is so located as to height and is so maintained as to be visible for at least 500 feet when opposed by a motor vehicle displaying lawful undimmed lights at night on an unlighted highway.
§ 20-183. Duties and powers of law-enforcement officers; warning by local officers before stopping another vehicle on highway; warning tickets.
(a) It shall be the duty of the law-enforcement officers of the State and of each county, city, or other municipality to see that the provisions of this Article are enforced within their respective jurisdictions, and any such officer shall have the power to arrest on sight or upon warrant any person found violating the provisions of this Article. Such officers within their respective jurisdictions shall have the power to stop any motor vehicle upon the highways of the State for the purpose of determining whether the same is being operated in violation of any of the provisions of this Article.Provided, that when any county, city, or other municipal law-enforcement officer operating a motor vehicle overtakes another vehicle on the highways of the State, outside of the corporate limits of cities and towns, for the purpose of stopping the same or apprehending the driver thereof, for a violation of any of the provisions of this Article, he shall, before stopping such other vehicle, sound a siren or activate a special light, bell, horn, or exhaust whistle approved for law-enforcement vehicles under the provisions of G.S. 20-125(b).
(b) In addition to other duties and powers heretofore existing, all law-enforcement officers charged with the duty of enforcing the motor vehicle laws are authorized to issue warning tickets to motorists for conduct constituting a potential hazard to the motoring public which does not amount to a definite, clear-cut, substantial violation of the motor vehicle laws. Each warning ticket issued shall contain information necessary to identify the offender, and shall be signed by the issuing officer. A copy of each warning ticket issued shall be delivered to the offender. Information from issued warning tickets shall be made available to the Drivers License Section of the Division of Motor Vehicles in a manner approved by the Commissioner but shall not be filed with or in any manner become a part of the offender's driving record. Warning tickets issued as well as the fact of issuance shall be privileged information and available only to authorized personnel of the Division for statistical and analytical purposes. (1937, c. 407, s. 143; 1961, c. 793; 1965, cc. 537, 999; 1975, c. 716, s. 5; 1998-149, s. 9.2.)
Based on a bit of Googling, North Carolina has a very antiquated law that requires a vehicle to have one operating brake light.
However in the modern world no-one remembered this, as it is a throwback to the early 1900s, and everyone assumed that a vehicle with two brake lights should have both of them working.
The Supreme Court held 8-1 that the police officer made a reasonable mistake in applying the brake light law incorrectly, and therefore the search that ensued was not unreasonable.
Given the common application of the concept of "reasonableness" in anglo-saxon law (meaning British and other laws descended from it) this seems a fair judgment.
The question is what circumstances would allow the police to creatively misinterpret laws in a way that seemed to a jury to be "reasonable" in order to create situations in which they could make enforced searches that would otherwise be unreasonable.
Here are the only references I was able to find in their document to "brakes & brake light". They do not seem to make any proper distinction between lamps and brake lights, it's possible that brake lights are considered signaling devices.
Given that it was enacted in 1937 it's a bit dated and has lots of amendments stapled on.
§ 20-124. Brakes.
(a) Every motor vehicle when operated upon a highway shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop such vehicle or vehicles, and such brakes shall be maintained in good working order and shall conform to regulations provided in this section.
(b) Repealed by Session Laws 1973, c. 1330, s. 39.
(c) Every motor vehicle when operated on a highway shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold such vehicle, and shall have all originally equipped brakes in good working order, including two separate means of applying the brakes. If these two separate means of applying the brakes are connected in any way, they shall be so constructed that failure of any one part of the operating mechanism shall not leave the motor vehicle without brakes.
(d) Every motorcycle and every motor-driven cycle when operated upon a highway shall be equipped with at least one brake which may be operated by hand or foot.
(e) Motor trucks and tractor-trucks with semitrailers attached shall be capable of stopping on a dry, hard, approximately level highway free from loose material at a speed of 20 miles per hour within the following distances: Thirty feet with both hand and service brake applied simultaneously and 50 feet when either is applied separately, except that vehicles maintained and operated permanently for the transportation of property and which were registered in this or any other state or district prior to August, 1929, shall be capable of stopping on a dry, hard, approximately level highway free from loose material at a speed of 20 miles per hour within a distance of 50 feet with both hand and service brake applied simultaneously, and within a distance of 75 feet when either applied separately.
(e1) Every motor truck and truck-tractor with semitrailer attached, shall be equipped with brakes acting on all wheels, except trucks and truck-tractors having three or more axles need not have brakes on the front wheels if manufactured prior to July 25, 1980. However, such trucks and truck-tractors must be capable of complying with the performance requirements of G.S. 20-124(e).
(f) Every semitrailer, or trailer, or separate vehicle, attached by a drawbar or coupling to a towing vehicle, and having a gross weight of two tons, and all house trailers of 1,000 pounds gross weight or more, shall be equipped with brakes controlled or operated by the driver of the towing vehicle, which shall conform to the specifications set forth in subsection (e) of this section and shall be of a type approved by the Commissioner.
It shall be unlawful for any person or corporation engaged in the business of selling house trailers at wholesale or retail to sell or offer for sale any house trailer which is not equipped with the brakes required by this subsection.
This subsection shall not apply to house trailers being used as dwellings, or to house trailers not intended to be used or towed on public highways and roads. This subsection shall not apply to house trailers with a manufacturer's certificate of origin dated prior to December 31, 1974.
(g) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a trailer when used by a farmer, a farmer's tenant, agent, or employee if the trailer is exempt from registration by the provisions of G.S. 20-51. This exemption does not apply to trailers that are equipped with brakes from the manufacturer and that are manufactured after October 1, 2009.
(h) From and after July 1, 1955, no person shall sell or offer for sale for use in motor vehicle brake systems in this State any hydraulic brake fluid of a type and brand other than those approved by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. From and after January 1, 1970, no person shall sell or offer for sale in motor vehicle brake systems any brake lining of a type or brand other than those approved by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. Violation of the provisions of this subsection shall constitute a Class 2 misdemeanor. (1937, c. 407, s. 87; 1953, c. 1316, s. 2; 1955, c. 1275; 1959, c. 990; 1965, c. 1031; 1967, c. 1188; 1969, cc. 787, 866; 1973, c. 1203; c. 1330, s. 39; 1993, c. 539, s. 359; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2009-376, ss. 10, 11.)
§ 20-129.1. Additional lighting equipment required on certain vehicles.
In addition to other equipment required by this Chapter, the following vehicles shall be equipped as follows:
(1) On every bus or truck, whatever its size, there shall be the following:
On the rear, two reflectors, one at each side, and one stoplight.
(2) On every bus or truck 80 inches or more in overall width, in addition to the requirements in subdivision (1):
On the front, two clearance lamps, one at each side.
On the rear, two clearance lamps, one at each side.
On each side, two side marker lamps, one at or near the front and one at or near the rear.
On each side, two reflectors, one at or near the front and one at or near the rear.
(3) On every truck tractor:
On the front, two clearance lamps, one at each side.
On the rear, one stoplight.
(4) On every trailer or semitrailer having a gross weight of 4,000 pounds or more:
On the front, two clearance lamps, one at each side.
On each side, two side marker lamps, one at or near the front and one at or near the rear.
On each side, two reflectors, one at or near the front and one at or near the rear.
On the rear, two clearance lamps, one at each side, also two reflectors, one at each side, and one stoplight.
(5) On every pole trailer having a gross weight of 4,000 pounds or more:
On each side, one side marker lamp and one clearance lamp which may be in combination, to show to the front, side and rear.
On the rear of the pole trailer or load, two reflectors, one at each side.
(6) On every trailer, semitrailer or pole trailer having a gross weight of less than 4,000 pounds:
On the rear, two reflectors, one on each side. If any trailer or semitrailer is so loaded or is of such dimensions as to obscure the stoplight on the towing vehicle, then such vehicle shall also be equipped with one stoplight.
(7) Front clearance lamps and those marker lamps and reflectors mounted on the front or on the side near the front of a vehicle shall display or reflect an amber color.
(8) Rear clearance lamps and those marker lamps and reflectors mounted on the rear or on the sides near the rear of a vehicle shall display or reflect a red color.
(9) Brake lights (and/or brake reflectors) on the rear of a motor vehicle shall have red lenses so that the light displayed is red. The light illuminating the license plate shall be white. All other lights shall be white, amber, yellow, clear or red.
§ 20-154. Signals on starting, stopping or turning.
(a) The driver of any vehicle upon a highway or public vehicular area before starting, stopping or turning from a direct line shall first see that such movement can be made in safety, and if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement shall give a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn, and whenever the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by such movement, shall give a signal as required in this section, plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicle, of the intention to make such movement. The driver of a vehicle shall not back the same unless such movement can be made with safety and without interfering with other traffic.
(a1) A person who violates subsection (a) of this section and causes a motorcycle operator to change travel lanes or leave that portion of any public street or highway designated as travel lanes shall be responsible for an infraction and shall be assessed a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200.00). A person who violates subsection (a) of this section that results in a crash causing property damage or personal injury to a motorcycle operator or passenger shall be responsible for an infraction and shall be assessed a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) unless subsection (a2) of this section applies.
(a2) A person who violates subsection (a) of this section and the violation results in a crash causing property damage in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000) or a serious bodily injury as defined in G.S. 20-160.1(b) to a motorcycle operator or passenger shall be responsible for an infraction and shall be assessed a fine of not less than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00). A violation of this subsection shall be treated as a failure to yield right-of-way to a motorcycle for purposes of assessment of points under G.S. 20-16(c). In addition, the trial judge shall have the authority to order the license of any driver violating this subsection suspended for a period not to exceed 30 days. If a judge orders suspension of a person's drivers license pursuant to this subsection, the judge may allow the licensee a limited driving privilege for a period not to exceed the period of suspension. The limited driving privilege shall be issued in the same manner and under the terms and conditions prescribed in G.S. 20-16.1(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and G.S. 20-16.1(g).
(b) The signal herein required shall be given by means of the hand and arm in the manner herein specified, or by any mechanical or electrical signal device approved by the Division, except that when a vehicle is so constructed or loaded as to prevent the hand and arm signal from being visible, both to the front and rear, the signal shall be given by a device of a type which has been approved by the Division.
Whenever the signal is given the driver shall indicate his intention to start, stop, or turn by extending the hand and arm from and beyond the left side of the vehicle as hereinafter set forth.
Left turn - hand and arm horizontal, forefinger pointing.
Right turn - hand and arm pointed upward.
Stop - hand and arm pointed downward.
All hand and arm signals shall be given from the left side of the vehicle and all signals shall be maintained or given continuously for the last 100 feet traveled prior to stopping or making a turn. Provided, that in all areas where the speed limit is 45 miles per hour or higher and the operator intends to turn from a direct line of travel, a signal of intention to turn from a direct line of travel shall be given continuously during the last 200 feet traveled before turning.
Any motor vehicle in use on a highway shall be equipped with, and required signal shall be given by, a signal lamp or lamps or mechanical signal device when the distance from the center of the top of the steering post to the left outside limit of the body, cab or load of such motor vehicle exceeds 24 inches, or when the distance from the center of the top of the steering post to the rear limit of the body or load thereof exceeds 14 feet. The latter measurement shall apply to any single vehicle, also to any combination of vehicles except combinations operated by farmers in hauling farm products.
(c) No person shall operate over the highways of this State a right-hand-drive motor vehicle or a motor vehicle equipped with the steering mechanism on the right-hand side thereof unless said motor vehicle is equipped with mechanical or electrical signal devices by which the signals for left turns and right turns may be given. Such mechanical or electrical devices shall be approved by the Division.
(d) A violation of this section shall not constitute negligence per se. (1937, c. 407, s. 116; 1949, c. 1016, s. 1; 1951, cc. 293, 360; 1955, c. 1157, s. 9; 1957, c. 488, s. 2; 1965, c. 768; 1973, c. 1330, s. 19; 1975, c. 716, s. 5; 1981, c. 599, s. 4; 1985, c. 96; 2011-361, s. 1; 2013-366, s. 5(a).)
Courtesy check. For the driver may not know his/her tail/plate light might be out. So LEO pulls them over and informs them of the malfunction which is a simple fix. Its not like the military where once a week we conduct PMCS on our vehicles.
Howard A Treesong wrote: A policeman can pull your car over any time for a random check in the UK, typically they ask to see licence and maybe insurance or tax. It's not common, but if it's a quiet night or you do anything to draw their attention you might get a random stop. If you consent to a search of the car that's your lookout.
Yes, but here in America we have a Bill of Rights that limits the power of government. In England you have privileges that are based on custom and legislation which can be taken away on a legislative whim. Your system is irrelevant to the OP's point that American police officers are held accountable to the law and their ignorance of said law is no defense. Thus the reason for the discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: Something I am wondering is what it was that the officer saw that caused him to make the request.
Probably driving while black, hispanic or looking like the kid who is screwing the cops daughter. Power corrupts.
If the guy was twerking then I really don't see an issue with the officer asking to search the vehicle. If the driver consented then that is that.
Complaining that the stop shouldn't have occurred in first place because of a clearly inadequate and outdated law is the sort of petty technicality that defence laywers love.
Drivers off their heads on coke are the real menace here.
Dreadwinter wrote: Why would a Brake Light not be considered a signaling device?
Why could a problem that could be solved by a non lawyer using Google make it all the way to the Supreme Court?
I dunno, I am beginning to think these things are just reading comprehension issues. People keep saying the stop was a "courtesy stop" when it states in the article that the police officer was stopping the person because the LEO thought they were breaking the law. It also states in the article that having one brake light out is perfectly legal. But people are still trying to argue about it.
You're missing that some animals are more equal than others.
Now pick up that fething can, citizen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: So police can't interact with the public unless they are committing a crime or are black?
Interact with? Sure. But we have rules here intended to provide citizens with freedom from abuse by LEOs. If LE fails to play by the rules due to negligence or intentional disregard of the rules, then the subject should walk.
All of this talk about a courtesy stop is a little bit ludicrous - "Hi...your brake light is out. Just letting you know" doesn't result in felony drug convictions. This cop was fishing for evidence without probable cause, banking on the ignorance of most people to the fact that they are not required to consent to a search. Most people don't know that they're allowed to say "no" to the cop. Of course, this will probably result in the officer calling a K9 unit and obtaining probable cause that way - if they want to feth you, they're going to feth you. You have somewhere to be? Too bad - they're going to make you wait as long as it takes to get a K9 there if they think there's a slim chance you might have drugs. After all, you didn't consent - what do you have to hide? Again - some animals are more equal than others.
SilverMK2 wrote: So police can't interact with the public unless they are committing a crime or are black?
Interact with? Sure. But we have rules here intended to provide citizens with freedom from abuse by LEOs. If LE fails to play by the rules due to negligence or intentional disregard of the rules, then the subject should walk.
All of this talk about a courtesy stop is a little bit ludicrous - "Hi...your brake light is out. Just letting you know" doesn't result in felony drug convictions. This cop was fishing for evidence without probable cause, banking on the ignorance of most people to the fact that they are not required to consent to a search. Most people don't know that they're allowed to say "no" to the cop. Of course, this will probably result in the officer calling a K9 unit and obtaining probable cause that way - if they want to feth you, they're going to feth you. You have somewhere to be? Too bad - they're going to make you wait as long as it takes to get a K9 there if they think there's a slim chance you might have drugs. After all, you didn't consent - what do you have to hide? Again - some animals are more equal than others.
Since you know so much about what this cop was thinking when making the stop, who really killed JFK?
I mean, since apparently you have the superpower of being able to read the thoughts of people in the past.
On topic though, this case has been a wonderful one to read. I can only hope that it finally forces the NCDOT to revise some of the traffic laws on the books because this "requires one functioning brake light" thing is asinine. You would not believe how bad it can be driving in this state, even when there isn't bad weather.
dogma wrote: I asked a simple question. No need to get catty.
You asked a simple question and I gave you a simple answer. No need to get defensive.
Ouze wrote: I agree. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that the police need probable cause just to pull you over, period - anything that is produced subsequent to an unlawful stop is fruit of the poison tree and inadmissible.
That is correct, police need probable cause to pull you over. The courts, by way of interpreting the Fourth Amendment, have made that pretty clear in the past. Given that the officer's stated intent in pulling the guy over was due to ignorance of state traffic laws, the traffic stop shouldn't have happened because the officer didn't have probable cause. It goes without saying that the driver also shouldn't have consented to a search, but is besides the point because everything that happened after the unlawful stop should be null.
Obviously he's a fool for consenting to a search with a carload of blow but that's besides the point.
Agreed. However, some people can't look past this. The protections afforded to us in the Constitution apply no matter how stupid you are.
Kanluwen wrote: You would not believe how bad it can be driving in this state, even when there isn't bad weather.
SilverMK2 wrote: So police can't interact with the public unless they are committing a crime or are black?
Interact with? Sure. But we have rules here intended to provide citizens with freedom from abuse by LEOs. If LE fails to play by the rules due to negligence or intentional disregard of the rules, then the subject should walk.
All of this talk about a courtesy stop is a little bit ludicrous - "Hi...your brake light is out. Just letting you know" doesn't result in felony drug convictions. This cop was fishing for evidence without probable cause, banking on the ignorance of most people to the fact that they are not required to consent to a search. Most people don't know that they're allowed to say "no" to the cop. Of course, this will probably result in the officer calling a K9 unit and obtaining probable cause that way - if they want to feth you, they're going to feth you. You have somewhere to be? Too bad - they're going to make you wait as long as it takes to get a K9 there if they think there's a slim chance you might have drugs. After all, you didn't consent - what do you have to hide? Again - some animals are more equal than others.
Since you know so much about what this cop was thinking when making the stop, who really killed JFK?
I mean, since apparently you have the superpower of being able to read the thoughts of people in the past.
How do you expect that he established probable cause for cocaine, a drug for which there is no strong odor easily perceptible by a human?
The childish personal attack is much appreciated though.
LuciusAR wrote: If the guy was twerking then I really don't see an issue with the officer asking to search the vehicle. If the driver consented then that is that.
Complaining that the stop shouldn't have occurred in first place because of a clearly inadequate and outdated law is the sort of petty technicality that defence laywers love.
Drivers off their heads on coke are the real menace here.
Ouze wrote: I agree. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that the police need probable cause just to pull you over, period - anything that is produced subsequent to an unlawful stop is fruit of the poison tree and inadmissible.
That is correct, police need probable cause to pull you over. The courts, by way of interpreting the Fourth Amendment, have made that pretty clear in the past. Given that the officer's stated intent in pulling the guy over was due to ignorance of state traffic laws, the traffic stop shouldn't have happened because the officer didn't have probable cause. It goes without saying that the driver also shouldn't have consented to a search, but is besides the point because everything that happened after the unlawful stop should be null.
How far does that go though? What if he's got his dead wife in the boot? That murder charge becomes null too?
Ouze wrote: I agree. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that the police need probable cause just to pull you over, period - anything that is produced subsequent to an unlawful stop is fruit of the poison tree and inadmissible.
That is correct, police need probable cause to pull you over. The courts, by way of interpreting the Fourth Amendment, have made that pretty clear in the past. Given that the officer's stated intent in pulling the guy over was due to ignorance of state traffic laws, the traffic stop shouldn't have happened because the officer didn't have probable cause. It goes without saying that the driver also shouldn't have consented to a search, but is besides the point because everything that happened after the unlawful stop should be null.
How far does that go though? What if he's got his dead wife in the boot? That murder charge becomes null too?
Probably driving while black, hispanic or looking like the kid who is screwing the cops daughter. Power corrupts.
I'm not sure asking counts as corrupt. Overzealous probably and unfair maybe, but it seems a stretch to frame it as abusive or crooked.
If the officers intent from the beginning was to search the vehicle because the driver fit a "profile" such as being black or hispanic in a car that was "too good for him" or simply because the guy looked like someone the officer didn't like then it is abusive. Since the officer went right from "faulty brake light" to "let me search your car" I suspect his intent from the beginning was to search the car for a less than honorable reason.
You could argue that a vehicle with an inoperable taillight is a safety hazard, and thus is deserving of at least a notification that the light is out.
Maybe, but it's pretty clear that she was not in violation of the state's traffic law. Even if it was a "complimentary stop," it wouldn't have warranted a request to search the vehicle.
It's standard police procedure to ask to search a vehicle if they think something is up. Without a warrant, they can't force anything, but when they pull you over they do so as much to check for erratic behavior as anything else. If they pull you over and you look like a law abiding citizen, then they let you go about your business with maybe a fix it ticket or whatever. But if they see something suspicious, which does not have to be anything so obvious as to give probably cause, they'll ask to search your vehicle, and if you grant them permission they can search it without violating your 4th amendment rights. Maybe you just seem oddly nervous, or say something odd, or something subtle raises a flag and they ask for the search. Police spend their careers dealing with people who are lying through their teeth, they get really good at spotting people who are acting oddly.
djones520 wrote: How do you know the guy wasn't tweaking out or something? Acting suspiciously. Giving reasonable suspicion?
I don't buy Sotomeyers opinion. The traffic stop was not made in bad faith. So the search was not made in bad faith..
As with others in this thread, you're sort of missing the point. How the driver was acting, once the stop happened, is irrelevant to the fact the stop should not have occurred to begin with.
A traffic stop predicated on giving a ticket for something that isn't unlawful isn't good faith.
Ouze wrote: I agree. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that the police need probable cause just to pull you over, period - anything that is produced subsequent to an unlawful stop is fruit of the poison tree and inadmissible.
That is correct, police need probable cause to pull you over. The courts, by way of interpreting the Fourth Amendment, have made that pretty clear in the past. Given that the officer's stated intent in pulling the guy over was due to ignorance of state traffic laws, the traffic stop shouldn't have happened because the officer didn't have probable cause. It goes without saying that the driver also shouldn't have consented to a search, but is besides the point because everything that happened after the unlawful stop should be null.
How far does that go though? What if he's got his dead wife in the boot? That murder charge becomes null too?
The murder charge won't be necessarily be null, but the evidence would (maybe) be inadmissible.
Let me use a more clear analogy. Lets say a cop is walking by my house and decides, based on a hunch, that I'm cooking meth in my basement. He has no articulate rationale for this - he didn't smell anything or see anything suspicious. He kicks in my door and finds the corpse of Jimmy Hoffa on my living room floor.
The case is irrevocably tainted, because he didn't have a warrant - he needs a reason to knock on my door, let alone kick it in.
DarkLink wrote: It's standard police procedure to ask to search a vehicle if they think something is up. Without a warrant, they can't force anything, but when they pull you over they do so as much to check for erratic behavior as anything else. If they pull you over and you look like a law abiding citizen, then they let you go about your business with maybe a fix it ticket or whatever. But if they see something suspicious, which does not have to be anything so obvious as to give probably cause, they'll ask to search your vehicle, and if you grant them permission they can search it without violating your 4th amendment rights. Maybe you just seem oddly nervous, or say something odd, or something subtle raises a flag and they ask for the search. Police spend their careers dealing with people who are lying through their teeth, they get really good at spotting people who are acting oddly.
It isn't standard police procedure to stop your vehicle without probable cause. The officer didn't have probable cause which he admitted as such while arguing that he was ignorant of the law therefore the stop shouldn't have happened.
I really don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to understand.
Let me use a more clear analogy. Lets say a cop is walking by my house and decides, based on a hunch, that I'm cooking meth in my basement. He has no articulate rationale for this - he didn't smell anything or see anything suspicious. He kicks in my door and finds the corpse of Jimmy Hoffa on my living room floor.
The case is irrevocably tainted, because he didn't have a warrant - he needs a reason to knock on my door, let alone kick it in.
Really bad analogy there as the search (and entry to the vehicle) wasn't forced upon anybody.
More apt cop walking by sees your dog outside and not on a leash, the cop being under the impression that the law required all dogs to be leashed knocks on the door to discuss that the dog should be leashed. You come to the door and are a bit too high or seem nervous, have a fine powdered moustache, whatever. Cop says hey man are you alright? Do you mind if I come in and look around. You reply "Derper-Doo, sure come on in bro!" You have far too few active brain cells and told him yes, so the cop steps in and once inside inside he looks around and sees the corpse of Jimmy Hoffa on your living room floor and finds the dufflebag full of blow you left sitting in the hallway. If you had been of right mind in the first place and said NO the cop would have to need to leave and come back later with a warrant (if he came back at all)
Sure he might have been mistaken about the leash laws, but it was your dumb fault for consenting to let him search your place which is a separate event.
djones520 wrote: How do you know the guy wasn't tweaking out or something? Acting suspiciously. Giving reasonable suspicion?
I don't buy Sotomeyers opinion. The traffic stop was not made in bad faith. So the search was not made in bad faith..
As with others in this thread, you're sort of missing the point. How the driver was acting, once the stop happened, is irrelevant to the fact the stop should not have occurred to begin with.
A traffic stop predicated on giving a ticket for something that isn't unlawful isn't good faith.
If the officer thought he was conducting the stop lawfully, then it is in good faith.
stanman wrote: Sure he might have been mistaken about the leash laws, but it was your dumb fault for consenting to let him search your place which is a separate event.
So why is it ok, and we should also be ok with it, for him to be wrong about the law when non-police are not allowed to make such a claim? Forget the last part and remember this is about the first part and tell me why it is ok for police to just kinda sorta know the law they are enforcing. I get people make mistakes but where I am confused is that non-police would still have to deal with the repercussions of their error while this guy seemingly gets a pass for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: If the officer thought he was conducting the stop lawfully, then it is in good faith.
How do you prove that? How do you prove that it was in good faith? You wouldn't take another officials word for it why would you here?
"Probable Cause" is getting thrown around way too much here. Going by the actual definition of probable cause, the only question to ask is: was it reasonable for the officer to believe that a broken brakelight would be in violation of the traffic code?
stanman wrote: Sure he might have been mistaken about the leash laws, but it was your dumb fault for consenting to let him search your place which is a separate event.
So why is it ok, and we should also be ok with it, for him to be wrong about the law when non-police are not allowed to make such a claim? Forget the last part and remember this is about the first part and tell me why it is ok for police to just kinda sorta know the law they are enforcing. I get people make mistakes but where I am confused is that non-police would still have to deal with the repercussions of their error while this guy seemingly gets a pass for it.
So throw out any charge directly related to the detainment and suspend or sue the cop or whatever.
However the drug possession and discovery is an independent event, which is why it was ruled to be upheld. Don't want to get arrested while carrying blow? don't consent to being searched.
stanman wrote: Sure he might have been mistaken about the leash laws, but it was your dumb fault for consenting to let him search your place which is a separate event.
So why is it ok, and we should also be ok with it, for him to be wrong about the law when non-police are not allowed to make such a claim? Forget the last part and remember this is about the first part and tell me why it is ok for police to just kinda sorta know the law they are enforcing. I get people make mistakes but where I am confused is that non-police would still have to deal with the repercussions of their error while this guy seemingly gets a pass for it.
So throw out any charge directly related to the detainment and suspend or sue the cop or whatever.
However the drug possession and discovery is an independent event, which is why it was ruled to be upheld. Don't want to get arrested while carrying blow? don't consent to being searched.
That is an answer as to what to do after the fact, but doesn't answer why it was ok to make a questionable stop to begin with.
djones520 wrote: If the officer thought he was conducting the stop lawfully, then it is in good faith.
How do you prove that? How do you prove that it was in good faith? You wouldn't take another officials word for it why would you here?
Why wouldn't you? Was there any evidence otherwise? Asides from the gut reaction of "Cops = Bad" what proof was there that he was doing anything more then trying to pull the guy over for a busted tail light?
The problem that we have here is there is not enough information, and everyone is making opinions based on the lack of info.
But, the law has clauses for good faith conduct of police officers. If the police officer was acting in good faith, the results of said actions are still admissible.
Tannhauser42 wrote: "Probable Cause" is getting thrown around way too much here. Going by the actual definition of probable cause, the only question to ask is: was it reasonable for the officer to believe that a broken brakelight would be in violation of the traffic code?
We are getting into a few tangents and scenarios here. Let's get back to the original decision the judges made.
The Supreme Court voted 8 to 1 in favor of the officer, so the bust was good. (In their eyes)
Law of the land, like it or not.
"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.”
djones520 wrote: Why wouldn't you? Was there any evidence otherwise?
Unsurprisingly you are missing the point. You can't prove either so neither is something that means anything. It is just as likely that he pulled them for good reason as well as for no reason and you can't prove either one as that isn't something you can prove.
No one has said cop = bad, just that there is no way to know it was one thing or another. People shout all the time about how bad government yet here is a government worker and suddenly free passes are being handed out under the hope or belief he really meant just to be a super fella that just helps out. It seems strange to want to have it both ways. It is like when someone complains about government spending while working for them and taking paychecks from them. One can have a healthy skepticism of the law and/or the way it is enforced without resorting to thinking cops are bad. Though it isn't surprising that people would immediately conflate skepticism with disdain when it makes it easier for them to oppose the other.
djones520 wrote: If the officer thought he was conducting the stop lawfully, then it is in good faith.
How do you prove that? How do you prove that it was in good faith? You wouldn't take another officials word for it why would you here?
The officer could have come up with any spurious reason like "erratic driving" or "suspicious behaviour" if he wanted an excuse that would satisfy the court or superiors. I don't see any attempt to deceive here or behaviour on the day that suggests that he wasn't acting in good faith when making the stop even if it wasn't necessitated by the letter of the law. If he was a corrupt and abusive cop as some suggest, he could have tried harder to support his own case.
Relapse wrote: We are getting into a few tangents and scenarios here. Let's get back to the original decision the judges made.
The Supreme Court voted 8 to 1 in favor of the officer, so the bust was good.
Law of the land, like it or not.
It is a complex situation and they might be right. I think Stanman is probably in the right that the search and conviction for possession should stand as once the driver agreed to a search he was pretty much screwed in that department. Yet I also think it might be problematic to be ok with police just pulling people over or coming to a house without legal reason. It is a bit of a grey area as you want police to help in some ways but you also don't want that leeway abused which also happens. I imagine it will be an issue for some time.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You asked a simple question and I gave you a simple answer. No need to get defensive.
No you didn't. You gave me a catty, or snarky if you prefer, answer. And are now, again, deliberately bypassing the essence of the question I asked; even though I explained it.
djones520 wrote: If the officer thought he was conducting the stop lawfully, then it is in good faith.
How do you prove that? How do you prove that it was in good faith? You wouldn't take another officials word for it why would you here?
The officer could have come up with any spurious reason like "erratic driving" or "suspicious behaviour" if he wanted an excuse that would satisfy the court or superiors. I don't see any attempt to deceive here or behaviour on the day that suggests that he wasn't acting in good faith when making the stop even if it wasn't necessitated by the letter of the law. If he was a corrupt and abusive cop as some suggest, he could have tried harder to support his own case.
"Acting in good faith" is such a nebulous thing and very difficult to prove. "Well he could have made up a better lie" doesn't really strike me as all that grand a reason to automatically take someones word for it.
djones520 wrote: If the officer thought he was conducting the stop lawfully, then it is in good faith.
How do you prove that? How do you prove that it was in good faith? You wouldn't take another officials word for it why would you here?
The officer could have come up with any spurious reason like "erratic driving" or "suspicious behaviour" if he wanted an excuse that would satisfy the court or superiors. I don't see any attempt to deceive here or behaviour on the day that suggests that he wasn't acting in good faith when making the stop even if it wasn't necessitated by the letter of the law. If he was a corrupt and abusive cop as some suggest, he could have tried harder to support his own case.
"Acting in good faith" is such a nebulous thing and very difficult to prove. "Well he could have made up a better lie" doesn't really strike me as all that grand a reason to automatically take someones word for it.
How many times has the SC, especially recently, been disagreed with? Hell the initial post was showing agreement with the dissent. I'm also in the dissent. We saw people in dissent in the Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, ect ect. Nothing new about that.
How many times has the SC, especially recently, been disagreed with? Hell the initial post was showing agreement with the dissent. I'm also in the dissent. We saw people in dissent in the Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, ect ect. Nothing new about that.
And? Dissent means nothing in the case of a SCOTUS ruling. It is how the law is to be interpreted now.
That's wrong. Traffic stops are Terry Stops, and as such are governed by reasonable suspicion.
If you want to argue the Terry stop point, that's fine. The officer would still need reasonable suspicion to act and would need to point to specific facts that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed. In the state of North Carolina, having only one operable brake light isn't a crime, therefore he had no reason suspicion and hence no reason to stop the driver.
dogma wrote: No you didn't. You gave me a catty, or snarky if you prefer, answer. And are now, again, deliberately bypassing the essence of the question I asked; even though I explained it.
That's interesting that you were able to determine my tone and intent to the answer I gave you, considering it was written and not spoken. You asked for a definition and I gave it to you.
If you want try and dig in to what I wrote or assign anything outside of it's face value to it, that's on you.
Relapse wrote: We are getting into a few tangents and scenarios here. Let's get back to the original decision the judges made.
The Supreme Court voted 8 to 1 in favor of the officer, so the bust was good.
Law of the land, like it or not.
It is a complex situation and they might be right. I think Stanman is probably in the right that the search and conviction for possession should stand as once the driver agreed to a search he was pretty much screwed in that department. Yet I also think it might be problematic to be ok with police just pulling people over or coming to a house without legal reason. It is a bit of a grey area as you want police to help in some ways but you also don't want that leeway abused which also happens. I imagine it will be an issue for some time.
The problem is that there is a significant difference between the circumstances.
There is a bit more leeway given, period, in traffic/moving violation stops because of the fact that cars are in motion before the traffic stop occurs.
Houses require exigent circumstances or probable cause for an officer to just "bust down the door" as in Ouze's scenario.
I have two friends that are both cops and I've been on plenty of ride alongs where I've seen them pull over lots of people for safety related issues. It's not that they are out there being a-holes drunk on power but rather they'd prefer to see people avoid accidents.
Lots of times they hit the lights and pull over a driver as that's often the easiest and safest way to get their attention, it's not always the best idea to pull along side somebody and try and communicate through hand gestures as that can cause people to lose sight of the road or even panic. But they'll hit the lights and let the driver know that there might be mechanical issues developing. Lights that have gone out or maybe popped out of socket, turn signals that don't work, dangerously under inflated tires, bald or bubbled tires, hanging mufflers etc. One of the really oddball stops I watched was a lady driving around with 6ft of gas pump nozzle and hose hanging off her car as she'd forgot to hang it back up and it ripped free when she left the station.
Many of these can become a safety issue to other drivers and even if they are not illegal per letter of the law. The cops are trying to be decent people and let drivers know about a potentially dangerous situation. A lot of these stops don't involve any sort of written warning (even when they could) but it's a friendly heads up type encounter to people in their community. Most people contacted in that manner are pretty happy as it helps them avoid tickets and accidents, I was never witness to anyone responding to a courtesy stop as "OMG mah civil liberties under fire!!" People being arrested for legit reasons will throw fits about being stopped etc "why are you stopping me? I'm outraged and violated!" meanwhile they have a kilo of drugs under their seat or a gym bag full of illegal guns. Heaven forbid.
Typically when it's somebody from outside the local area they may end up with a written ticket or notice, or if the person is being a jerk, but to locals the majority of cops try and maintain a decent relationship. Maybe I'm just lucky knowing some good cops who aren't out there trying to re-enact episodes of the shield on a daily basis.
Most of the time they stop people who are just going about their typical day and haven't noticed the issue with their car, or haven't had time to fix it yet etc. But there's a portion of them that simply by coming into contact with the officers end up tipping them off to other illegal activities. People doing shady things are usually pretty nervous when in the presence of the cops, and people who are drunk or high do some really bizzare stuff so cops tend to have an instinct for when something's odd is going on vs just being a routine friendly stop.
People want to make it seem like every traffic stop results in somebody being ripped from their car and beaten with rubber hoses while their children are strip searched before being fed to trained attack dogs, that's not the case. I don't know the actual numbers but from what I've seen from personal experience is that courtesy/safety stops are usually about 40% of the stops they perform, while the rest is activity that's based on ticket worthy violations speeding, reckless driving, warrants, etc. (Cops also spend an amazing amount of time sitting around filling out paper work).
djones520 wrote: If the officer thought he was conducting the stop lawfully, then it is in good faith.
How do you prove that? How do you prove that it was in good faith? You wouldn't take another officials word for it why would you here?
The officer could have come up with any spurious reason like "erratic driving" or "suspicious behaviour" if he wanted an excuse that would satisfy the court or superiors. I don't see any attempt to deceive here or behaviour on the day that suggests that he wasn't acting in good faith when making the stop even if it wasn't necessitated by the letter of the law. If he was a corrupt and abusive cop as some suggest, he could have tried harder to support his own case.
"Acting in good faith" is such a nebulous thing and very difficult to prove. "Well he could have made up a better lie" doesn't really strike me as all that grand a reason to automatically take someones word for it.
You don't have to prove it. You have to get the jury to accept from the point of view of a reasonable "man in the street" that the policeman's reason was reasonable.
How many people knew North Carolinan law did not require both brake lights to be working? Neither the driver nor the policeman knew it.
The jury accepted that it was reasonable to stop the car. In different circumstances they would make a different decision.
If you want to argue the Terry stop point, that's fine. The officer would have need a reasonable suspicion to act and would need to point to specific facts that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed. In the state of North Carolina, having only one operable brake light isn't a crime, therefore he had no reason suspicion and hence no reason to stop the driver.
No, it isn't a crime, but the conditions which allow for reasonable suspicion don't need to be crimes in and of themselves. They simply need to be facts which an officer can cite.
djones520 wrote: If the officer thought he was conducting the stop lawfully, then it is in good faith.
How do you prove that? How do you prove that it was in good faith? You wouldn't take another officials word for it why would you here?
The officer could have come up with any spurious reason like "erratic driving" or "suspicious behaviour" if he wanted an excuse that would satisfy the court or superiors. I don't see any attempt to deceive here or behaviour on the day that suggests that he wasn't acting in good faith when making the stop even if it wasn't necessitated by the letter of the law. If he was a corrupt and abusive cop as some suggest, he could have tried harder to support his own case.
"Acting in good faith" is such a nebulous thing and very difficult to prove. "Well he could have made up a better lie" doesn't really strike me as all that grand a reason to automatically take someones word for it.
You don't have to prove it. You have to get the jury to accept from the point of view of a reasonable "man in the street" that the policeman's reason was reasonable.
How many people knew North Carolinan law did not require both brake lights to be working? Neither the driver nor the policeman knew it.
The jury accepted that it was reasonable to stop the car. In different circumstances they would make a different decision.
I can tell you right now that the NC DMV and driver's test require you to make sure that both brake lights are working.
How many times has the SC, especially recently, been disagreed with? Hell the initial post was showing agreement with the dissent. I'm also in the dissent. We saw people in dissent in the Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, ect ect. Nothing new about that.
And? Dissent means nothing in the case of a SCOTUS ruling. It is how the law is to be interpreted now.
It seems you know little about how SC Dissents has worked historically. No one is also calling for people to break the law either so you might want to cool your jets there a bit cowboy. I was able to work two NFL teams into that and no one could stop me.
Stanman wrote:eople want to make it seem like every traffic stop results in somebody being ripped from their car and beaten with rubber hoses while their children are strip searched before being fed to trained attack dogs
I don't think anyone is actually portraying that or even saying it except you. Being able to question authority is pretty fundamental to the system and there is nothing wrong with discussing matters regarding possible systemic failures in the system. I imagine many of us here know people within police forces so that really isn't a free "I win" button either. I can think of a few friends on the force as well but that doesn't change anything about the discussing of when it is ok to break the law and when it isn't. Here the court thought it was ok in that he didn't really mean to. I don't think that reasoning works but I also understand the reasoning behind it, nor do I think a reasonable man would be ok with it. Of course I am not what most would probably call "a reasonable man" so I suppose I have trouble relating to that concept.
Relapse wrote: We are getting into a few tangents and scenarios here. Let's get back to the original decision the judges made.
The Supreme Court voted 8 to 1 in favor of the officer, so the bust was good. (In their eyes)
Law of the land, like it or not.
And that's why the Obamacare thread ended 4 posts into the thread announcing the SCOTUS found it lawful, and was never discussed here again.
stanman wrote: I have two friends that are both cops and I've been on plenty of ride alongs where I've seen them pull over lots of people for safety related issues. It's not that they are out there being a-holes drunk on power but rather they'd prefer to see people avoid accidents.
Sure, imaginary irrelevant cases mean this and that, but in this case, he pulled him over to give him a ticket for something he though was unlawful, but wasn't.
stanman wrote: People want to make it seem like every traffic stop results in somebody being ripped from their car and beaten with rubber hoses while their children are strip searched before being fed to trained attack dogs
I'll take "rebuttals to arguments no one made" for 500, Alex.
Kanluwen wrote: Houses require exigent circumstances or probable cause for an officer to just "bust down the door" as in Ouze's scenario.
Relapse wrote: We are getting into a few tangents and scenarios here. Let's get back to the original decision the judges made.
The Supreme Court voted 8 to 1 in favor of the officer, so the bust was good. (In their eyes)
Law of the land, like it or not.
And that's why the Obamacare thread ended 4 posts into the thread announcing the SCOTUS found it lawful, and was never discussed here again.
stanman wrote: Don't want to get arrested while carrying blow? don't consent to being searched.
The problem is while the law reads that you can simply say "sorry, but no." to the cop and drive on with your ticket for a faulty light which you can later fight in traffic court on the premise that the law only requires one light the real world situation is if you say "no" then the cop will drag you out of your car and rip your vehicle apart, calling in dogs to sniff and rip at your luggage and otherwise ruin your day all based on the idea that only the guilty would refuse a search thus giving them probable cause. In the situation the driver found himself in the only hope he had was the cop would be less suspicious since he allowed the search and thus the cop wouldn't be as thorough perhaps missing the stash.
Of course this is all conjecture as I don't know the gentleman in question. He very well may have been an idiot or perhaps he was unaware of the stash. It may have been a friends car or perhaps a friend left it there because he was too high to make good decisions. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
The real point at the heart of this is how much do we trust the good intentions of cops? My life experiences have led me to not trust anyone who has power over me. I question everything and assume the worst of those in power. Much like the founders distrusted authority, thus the reasons for giving very specific powers to government and restricting those powers further with the Bill of Rights. Today I think too many people trust those in power and don't ask questions about the actions of those empowered by government. They accept blatant violations of an individuals rights because they see the end justifying the means. The problem is for there to be true justice the means must be justified in and of themselves. Those in power must be held to a higher standard because their powers are far too easy to abuse. Drop by the CATO institutes page on police brutality (http://www.policemisconduct.net/) to see a daily recap of all the instances of brutality. This doesn't include other instances of misconduct, there are plenty of other sites for that.
I blame in part television cop shows for desensitizing us. One show is even advertised for the police characters routine violation of suspect rights as if it's a good thing. There have been plenty of studies showing people on juries expect the process to be much like on the cop shows. They trust the results from crime labs as if a herald of god brought the results to the courtroom. They figure "pleading the fifth" is all but an admission of guilt. They assume the police wouldn't arrest the wrong person so guilt is assumed from the beginning. The idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is flat out ignored and if a lawyer tries to question the integrity of the arresting officer he may as well start waving a communist flag for all the good it does.
We are going down a dark path my friends.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: No one has said cop = bad, just that there is no way to know it was one thing or another.
For there to be justice we must assume the cop was doing something wrong. Thus the reason for "innocent until proven guilty". If we assume the cop is above reproach then we may as well say
"guilty until proven innocent".
Ahtman wrote: People shout all the time about how bad government yet here is a government worker and suddenly free passes are being handed out under the hope or belief he really meant just to be a super fella that just helps out.
That in a nutshell has always been my problem with conservatives. They rail on about corruption in government and how government cant be trusted to protect our liberties and the like. They talk about gun ownership preventing tyranny. However as a friend of mine often says "you can't have a police state without police". When the "government" comes to take your guns who do you think will be knocking on your door? A bureaucrat from the DMV? No, it will be one of these cops who are above reproach. At that point what will they do? Submit to the cop as they advise everyone else to do? At that point how have your guns preserved liberty?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stanman wrote: People want to make it seem like every traffic stop results in somebody being ripped from their car and beaten with rubber hoses while their children are strip searched before being fed to trained attack dogs.
That only happens to people who fit a profile such as looking like the kid who is screwing the cops daughter....
27.4% of the videos on YouTube are people in the USA being stopped by the police while driving and refusing to allow their car to be searched. This of course is a form of entrapment since the police deleted the 39.7% of YouTube videos that show the police then beating the crap out of such drivers and searching their car anyway.
Almost textbook example of the Good Faith Exception. Hence why it wasn't a 5-4 split. It was 8-1.
The what if's and fascist police state POVs can be argued all day, but it seems pretty clear that justice was served in this case. If there was any proof of profiling/coercion/questionable legal grounds, it would have been brought up. Police get slapped down for bad warrants and searches pretty regularly at the local level in the ol' 603. YMMV, but I find most cases where the police screwed up don't make it to the SCOTUS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: 27.4% of the videos on YouTube are people in the USA being stopped by the police while driving and refusing to allow their car to be searched. This of course is a form of entrapment since the police deleted the 39.7% of YouTube videos that show the police then beating the crap out of such drivers and searching their car anyway.
Don't like to see somebody get off on a technicality, but I don't think that law enforcement officers need much encouragement to half ass their jobs either. Good faith protects the officer from the mistakes of others, as I understand it. In this case it was the officer who was ignorant of the law.
Stops that don't involve a valid probable cause make me uneasy, even if big brother tells me it's OK for them to do it.
LordBaronVonVaderham wrote: Don't like to see somebody get off on a technicality, but I don't think that law enforcement officers need much encouragement to half ass their jobs either.
That's assuming that it is law enforcement officers "half assing their jobs" in this instance...
Good faith protects the officer from the mistakes of others, as I understand it.
You don't understand it then.
"Good faith" protects the officer from the mistakes of others but also protects the officer from penalty for actions taken during the execution of their duties when they are acting in good faith. Good faith is most commonly used as an example in circumstances such as when an officer serves a warrant but the warrant was filled out improperly and the warrant might get served on the wrong John Doe, protecting the officer(and to a lesser extent the department) from legal action by John Doe. The office of the prosecutor is instead the entity that John Doe can seek recourse from.
There is another part of "Good faith" however in that it also contains a litmus test asking whether what the officer did could be considered a "reasonable action". More on that in a second.
In this case it was the officer who was ignorant of the law.
First up? I live in North Carolina. I can tell you right now that in order for my car to pass inspection and be able to be driven, I have to have two functioning brake/tail lights and turning signals.
That is drilled into any teenager or young adult who has taken driver's education here, or any individual who has had to take a driver's test here.
So, do you think it a reasonable action for a police officer to pull a vehicle over for only having one functioning brake light when in order for a vehicle to pass inspection you are required to have two? Or that it is taught in driver's education and to those who get their licenses here?
The answer should be "Yes, that's a reasonable action"--unless of course you're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.
Stops that don't involve a valid probable cause make me uneasy, even if big brother tells me it's OK for them to do it.
Traffic stops don't need probable cause, but rather require reasonable suspicion.
LordBaronVonVaderham wrote: Don't like to see somebody get off on a technicality, but I don't think that law enforcement officers need much encouragement to half ass their jobs either.
That's assuming that it is law enforcement officers "half assing their jobs" in this instance...
Good faith protects the officer from the mistakes of others, as I understand it.
You don't understand it then.
"Good faith" protects the officer from the mistakes of others but also protects the officer from penalty for actions taken during the execution of their duties when they are acting in good faith. Good faith is most commonly used as an example in circumstances such as when an officer serves a warrant but the warrant was filled out improperly and the warrant might get served on the wrong John Doe, protecting the officer(and to a lesser extent the department) from legal action by John Doe. The office of the prosecutor is instead the entity that John Doe can seek recourse from.
There is another part of "Good faith" however in that it also contains a litmus test asking whether what the officer did could be considered a "reasonable action". More on that in a second.
In this case it was the officer who was ignorant of the law.
First up? I live in North Carolina. I can tell you right now that in order for my car to pass inspection and be able to be driven, I have to have two functioning brake/tail lights and turning signals.
That is drilled into any teenager or young adult who has taken driver's education here, or any individual who has had to take a driver's test here.
So, do you think it a reasonable action for a police officer to pull a vehicle over for only having one functioning brake light when in order for a vehicle to pass inspection you are required to have two? Or that it is taught in driver's education and to those who get their licenses here?
The answer should be "Yes, that's a reasonable action"--unless of course you're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.
Stops that don't involve a valid probable cause make me uneasy, even if big brother tells me it's OK for them to do it.
Traffic stops don't need probable cause, but rather require reasonable suspicion.
allegedly because of a brake light which at first failed to illuminate and then flickered on.
He stopped the car because of a problem that was convieniently no longer an issue when he actually talked to the person. I don't like this. Sounds fishy to me. I don't trust cops and one of the biggest reasons I don't trust them is that they never seem to get in trouble for anything. Whenever someone implies that perhaps an officer acted badly in a situation, I just seem to hear a long list of excuses, justifications, and even bullying in their defence. I don't hate cops. I respect the job they do, but I don't like how they band together whenever criticized like a clique of high school girls. I can't trust them if they refuse to hold themselves accountable for their actions. Hiding behind phrases like "good faith" and "reasonable suspicion" is not the kind of thing that inspires confidence. The condescending tone that law and order types tend to take while lecturing others when these things come up indicates an unnerving arrogance and feeling of superiority. You can't trust someone who doesn't respect you.
Kanluwen wrote: I don't think you quite understand the point of the "acting in good faith" defense, if you think that you should be able to have the same defense.
Is it because these officers are empowered by the state, that they should be allowed to say "oops, my bad... but, I had good intention!".
I mean, why can't this chick use this same defense?
Is it because we musttreat law enforcement officers differently?
Kanluwen wrote: I don't think you quite understand the point of the "acting in good faith" defense, if you think that you should be able to have the same defense.
Is it because these officers are empowered by the state, that they should be allowed to say "oops, my bad... but, I had good intention!".
I mean, why can't this chick use this same defense?
Is it because we musttreat law enforcement officers differently?
If you can't understand the difference between someone who is acting "in good faith" during the course of their job and someone who simply didn't know the different laws between states, I don't know how to help you.
Kanluwen wrote: I don't think you quite understand the point of the "acting in good faith" defense, if you think that you should be able to have the same defense.
Is it because these officers are empowered by the state, that they should be allowed to say "oops, my bad... but, I had good intention!".
I mean, why can't this chick use this same defense?
Is it because we musttreat law enforcement officers differently?
If you can't understand the difference between someone who is acting "in good faith" during the course of their job and someone who simply didn't know the different laws between states, I don't know how to help you.
Well... parse this out a bit.
Do you believe it's likely that the Pennsylvanian woman thought that her CCW license was applicable in NJ?
The officer believed he understood the law when he pulled the car over.
How are they different? By their actions, both (incorrectly) reasonably understood the law.
Kanluwen wrote: I don't think you quite understand the point of the "acting in good faith" defense, if you think that you should be able to have the same defense.
Is it because these officers are empowered by the state, that they should be allowed to say "oops, my bad... but, I had good intention!".
I mean, why can't this chick use this same defense?
Is it because we musttreat law enforcement officers differently?
If you can't understand the difference between someone who is acting "in good faith" during the course of their job and someone who simply didn't know the different laws between states, I don't know how to help you.
Well... parse this out a bit.
Do you believe it's likely that the Pennsylvanian woman thought that her CCW license was applicable in NJ?
The officer believed he understood the law when he pulled the car over.
How are they different? By their actions, both (incorrectly) reasonably understood the law.
Because one item is a private citizen with a license issued from a specific state to carry the weapon in that state (though I sympathize with her case and hope for prosecutor discretion). I know my NH license to carry means nothing in MA, nor does a Alabama hunting permit mean squat in Alaska. Ignorance as a private citizen in a licensing issue is a far cry from an Officer completing a routine traffic stop based on (a clearly contentious, as seen in this thread) NC statute.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Please, re-read the definitions of the good faith doctrine. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the situation you're using as an example.
I understand it...
As the SC stated in (Brinegar v. U.S.) "Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability."
I don't have a problem with that...
So, what you have here is that police effectively have a "shield" when conducting unreasonable searches and seizures that doesn't automatically jeopardize a case or the evidence involved.
Read that last sentence:
"But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability."
So again, in the case of the Pennsylvanian woman... don't you think that was a reasonable mistake? And if so, why is she prohibited from using a "Good Faith Doctrine" as a defense?
Because one item is a private citizen with a license issued from a specific state to carry the weapon in that state (though I sympathize with her case and hope for prosecutor discretion). I know my NH license to carry means nothing in MA, nor does a Alabama hunting permit mean squat in Alaska. Ignorance as a private citizen in a licensing issue is a far cry from an Officer completing a routine traffic stop based on (a clearly contentious, as seen in this thread) NC statute.
Why should it matter that this is a "privatecitizen"?
Whembly, you're still misinterpreting the doctrine. It is an exception to the exclusionary rule of evidence. It is not a blanket defense for all actions.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Please, re-read the definitions of the good faith doctrine. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the situation you're using as an example.
I understand it...
As the SC stated in (Brinegar v. U.S.) "Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability."
I don't have a problem with that...
So, what you have here is that police effectively have a "shield" when conducting unreasonable searches and seizures that doesn't automatically jeopardize a case or the evidence involved.
Read that last sentence:
"But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability."
So again, in the case of the Pennsylvanian woman... don't you think that was a reasonable mistake? And if so, why is she prohibited from using a "Good Faith Doctrine" as a defense?
...
Gun law differences between US states are well enough publicised that they have become the subject of international debate let alone debate within the USA.
I, a Briton living in the UK, know that gun laws differ between say New York, Oregon and Alabama. Is it really unreasonable to expect a person who lives in the USA and actually is subject to those laws to know that there could be a difference and check on it?
To compare with the brake lights issue, I don't think there is a civilised region in the developed world which doesn't require drivers to have operating brake lights. It is so standard even in North Carolina that it forms part of the driving test.
To put it in blunt terms, person who carries a concealed firearm across state line without checking the validity of their state issued licence == fething idiot. Person who assumes the brake lights on a car ought to function == normal competent driver.
Surely you would not claim that NC citizens driving into SC could be immune from having a defective brake light because they think the law of their own state applies elsewhere?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Whembly, you're still misinterpreting the doctrine. It is an exception to the exclusionary rule of evidence. It is not a blanket defense for all actions.
I'm not using it as a blanket defense.
Ignorance of the law != to blanket defense.
I'm getting strange bedfellows in this thread... and it's awesome!
Anyhoo, I'm now convinced that I'm wrong... but I don't like it.
ing idiot and agreed to a search when transporting illegal drugs. It's not like the cops pulled the guy over on a pretense and then forced a search against the driver's protests, a situation where probable cause would have been required and the evidence should be thrown out. I don't see why probable cause should be an issue if you effectively walk up to a cop and say "I'm guilty, please arrest me".
