Yowsa... I agree with Justice Sonia Sotorrmayer!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/06-17-2014_Heien_Brief.pdf

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-27/supreme-court-rules-police-can-violate-4th-amendment-if-they-are-ignorant-law

<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?

O.o

What am I missing?

**OIIIIIIO**

A badge?

**Desubot**

"Nicholas Heien, the owner of the vehicle, granted his consent to a search."

Whats the problem?

**Ensis Ferrae**

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"

**whembly**

Desubot wrote:
"Nicholas Heien, the owner of the vehicle, granted his consent to a search."

Whats the problem?

It's the simple fact that us "plebes" cannot use this "ignorance of the law defence"... and yet, the officers seemingly can.

**Desubot**

whembly wrote:
Desubot wrote:
"Nicholas Heien, the owner of the vehicle, granted his consent to a search."

Whats the problem?

It's the simple fact that us "plebes" cannot use this "ignorance of the law defence"... and yet, the officers seemingly can.

I guess.
Lucky for me i don't drive around with bags of cocaine so i should be k.

**Ahtman**

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.

**Howard A Treesong**

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.

**stanman**

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.

**Tannhauser42**

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.

**whembly**

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.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

It's the simple fact that us "plebes" cannot use this "ignorance of the law defence"... and yet, the officers seemingly can.

Technically this is not a defense of any sort, let alone an ignorantia argument.

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:
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...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception

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.

**Peregrine**

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".

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Peregrine wrote:
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.

**Jihadin**

Its a loop hole

**Grey Templar**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
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.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Grey Templar wrote:

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.

**Grey Templar**

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.

**dogma**

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.

What does "operating" mean?

**ScootyPuffJunior**

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.

dogma wrote:
What does "operating" mean?

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.

**Peregrine**

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.

**stanman**

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

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?)

From the ACLU website:

https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you#2

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.

**Ouze**

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.

**Yodhrin**

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.

**Mr. Burning**

Cop made mistake, got lucky - thankfully an idiot criminal got their just desserts.

Although they wouldn't have a/another criminal charge had the cop been better educated.

Funny old world.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yodhrin wrote:

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.

**Relapse**

Something I am wondering is what it was that the officer saw that caused him to make the request.

**Spetulhu**

Mr. Burning wrote:
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.

**Mr. Burning**

Relapse wrote:
Something I am wondering is what it was that the officer saw that caused him to make the request.

Something I was wondering too.

The pithy answer would be that it doesn't matter since hes bad for making the initial stop.

**dogma**

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.