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.

**Ensis Ferrae**

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**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
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.

**granander**

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.

**Ahtman**

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**

Ahtman wrote:
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.

**Ahtman**

granander wrote:
But IS the stopping, in fact, illegal

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.

**Chongara**

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.

**SilverMK2**

So police can't interact with the public unless they are committing a crime or are black?

**stanman**

North Carolina Traffic Laws

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.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_20/Article_3.html

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 and rear 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.)

**ScootyPuffJunior**

A rear lamp and a brake light are two separate things.

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**stanman**

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).)

**Dreadwinter**

Why would a Brake Light not be considered a signaling device?

**Ahtman**

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?

**dogma**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
A rear lamp and a brake light are two separate things.

Sort of. Often they are the same device with candle power varying according to turn signals and brake pressure, which is to say nothing of CHMSLs.

**Jihadin**

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.

**Me Like Burnaz**

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.

**Chongara**

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

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.

**LuciusAR**

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**

Ahtman wrote:
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.

The world is a mysterious place.

**NuggzTheNinja**

whembly wrote:

What am I missing?

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.

**Kanluwen**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

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.

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.

**Tannhauser42**

LuciusAR wrote:
If the guy was twerking then I really don't see an issue with the officer asking to search the vehicle.

Best typo I've seen today.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

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.

That problem isn't unique to North Carolina.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Kanluwen wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:

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.

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.

**djones520**

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.

This should stand up.

**Kilkrazy**

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.

Damn, you nailed it!

**Howard A Treesong**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
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?

**Jihadin**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
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?

RL Murder charge for a barbie doll?

**Me Like Burnaz**

Chongara wrote:
Me Like Burnaz wrote:

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.