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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 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.

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.

 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?

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.

 Ouze wrote:

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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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?

 Ahtman wrote:

 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:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:


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?

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?

No.

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.

 djones520 wrote:
Asides from the gut reaction of "Cops = Bad"

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

Well, SCOTUS seems to disagree with you.

The case reminds me of something that would be presented in civics class.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
That is correct, police need probable cause to pull you over.

That's wrong. Traffic stops are Terry Stops, and as such are governed by reasonable suspicion.

 djones520 wrote:
Well, SCOTUS seems to disagree with you.

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Well, SCOTUS seems to disagree with you.

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.

 dogma wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
That is correct, police need probable cause to pull you over.

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

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).

 Ahtman wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

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.

Written words also carry tone and intention.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Well, SCOTUS seems to disagree with you.

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.

In retrospect it wasn't my best analogy.