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.

 Ouze 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. (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.

But in that case, they were wrong!

 stanman wrote:
Don't want to get arrested while carrying blow? don't consent to being searched.

The problem is while the law reads that you can simply say "sorry, but no." to the cop and drive on with your ticket for a faulty light which you can later fight in traffic court on the premise that the law only requires one light the real world situation is if you say "no" then the cop will drag you out of your car and rip your vehicle apart, calling in dogs to sniff and rip at your luggage and otherwise ruin your day all based on the idea that only the guilty would refuse a search thus giving them probable cause. In the situation the driver found himself in the only hope he had was the cop would be less suspicious since he allowed the search and thus the cop wouldn't be as thorough perhaps missing the stash.

Of course this is all conjecture as I don't know the gentleman in question. He very well may have been an idiot or perhaps he was unaware of the stash. It may have been a friends car or perhaps a friend left it there because he was too high to make good decisions. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The real point at the heart of this is how much do we trust the good intentions of cops? My life experiences have led me to not trust anyone who has power over me. I question everything and assume the worst of those in power. Much like the founders distrusted authority, thus the reasons for giving very specific powers to government and restricting those powers further with the Bill of Rights. Today I think too many people trust those in power and don't ask questions about the actions of those empowered by government. They accept blatant violations of an individuals rights because they see the end justifying the means. The problem is for there to be true justice the means must be justified in and of themselves. Those in power must be held to a higher standard because their powers are far too easy to abuse. Drop by the CATO institutes page on police brutality (http://www.policemisconduct.net/) to see a daily recap of all the instances of brutality. This doesn't include other instances of misconduct, there are plenty of other sites for that.

I blame in part television cop shows for desensitizing us. One show is even advertised for the police characters routine violation of suspect rights as if it's a good thing. There have been plenty of studies showing people on juries expect the process to be much like on the cop shows. They trust the results from crime labs as if a herald of god brought the results to the courtroom. They figure "pleading the fifth" is all but an admission of guilt. They assume the police wouldn't arrest the wrong person so guilt is assumed from the beginning. The idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is flat out ignored and if a lawyer tries to question the integrity of the arresting officer he may as well start waving a communist flag for all the good it does.

We are going down a dark path my friends.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
No one has said cop = bad, just that there is no way to know it was one thing or another.

For there to be justice we must assume the cop was doing something wrong. Thus the reason for "innocent until proven guilty". If we assume the cop is above reproach then we may as well say
"guilty until proven innocent".

 Ahtman wrote:
People shout all the time about how bad government yet here is a government worker and suddenly free passes are being handed out under the hope or belief he really meant just to be a super fella that just helps out.

That in a nutshell has always been my problem with conservatives. They rail on about corruption in government and how government cant be trusted to protect our liberties and the like. They talk about gun ownership preventing tyranny. However as a friend of mine often says "you can't have a police state without police". When the "government" comes to take your guns who do you think will be knocking on your door? A bureaucrat from the DMV? No, it will be one of these cops who are above reproach. At that point what will they do? Submit to the cop as they advise everyone else to do? At that point how have your guns preserved liberty?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stanman wrote:
People want to make it seem like every traffic stop results in somebody being ripped from their car and beaten with rubber hoses while their children are strip searched before being fed to trained attack dogs.

That only happens to people who fit a profile such as looking like the kid who is screwing the cops daughter....

27.4% of the videos on YouTube are people in the USA being stopped by the police while driving and refusing to allow their car to be searched. This of course is a form of entrapment since the police deleted the 39.7% of YouTube videos that show the police then beating the crap out of such drivers and searching their car anyway.

Almost textbook example of the Good Faith Exception. Hence why it wasn't a 5-4 split. It was 8-1.

The what if's and fascist police state POVs can be argued all day, but it seems pretty clear that justice was served in this case. If there was any proof of profiling/coercion/questionable legal grounds, it would have been brought up. Police get slapped down for bad warrants and searches pretty regularly at the local level in the ol' 603. YMMV, but I find most cases where the police screwed up don't make it to the SCOTUS.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
27.4% of the videos on YouTube are people in the USA being stopped by the police while driving and refusing to allow their car to be searched. This of course is a form of entrapment since the police deleted the 39.7% of YouTube videos that show the police then beating the crap out of such drivers and searching their car anyway.

Exalted.

Don't like to see somebody get off on a technicality, but I don't think that law enforcement officers need much encouragement to half ass their jobs either. Good faith protects the officer from the mistakes of others, as I understand it. In this case it was the officer who was ignorant of the law.

Stops that don't involve a valid probable cause make me uneasy, even if big brother tells me it's OK for them to do it.

 LordBaronVonVaderham wrote:
Don't like to see somebody get off on a technicality, but I don't think that law enforcement officers need much encouragement to half ass their jobs either.

That's assuming that it is law enforcement officers "half assing their jobs" in this instance...

Good faith protects the officer from the mistakes of others, as I understand it.

You don't understand it then.
"Good faith" protects the officer from the mistakes of others but also protects the officer from penalty for actions taken during the execution of their duties when they are acting in good faith. Good faith is most commonly used as an example in circumstances such as when an officer serves a warrant but the warrant was filled out improperly and the warrant might get served on the wrong John Doe, protecting the officer(and to a lesser extent the department) from legal action by John Doe. The office of the prosecutor is instead the entity that John Doe can seek recourse from.

There is another part of "Good faith" however in that it also contains a litmus test asking whether what the officer did could be considered a "reasonable action". More on that in a second.

In this case it was the officer who was ignorant of the law.

First up? I live in North Carolina. I can tell you right now that in order for my car to pass inspection and be able to be driven, I have to have two functioning brake/tail lights and turning signals.
That is drilled into any teenager or young adult who has taken driver's education here, or any individual who has had to take a driver's test here.

So, do you think it a reasonable action for a police officer to pull a vehicle over for only having one functioning brake light when in order for a vehicle to pass inspection you are required to have two? Or that it is taught in driver's education and to those who get their licenses here?
The answer should be "Yes, that's a reasonable action"--unless of course you're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Stops that don't involve a valid probable cause make me uneasy, even if big brother tells me it's OK for them to do it.

Traffic stops don't need probable cause, but rather require reasonable suspicion.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LordBaronVonVaderham wrote:
Don't like to see somebody get off on a technicality, but I don't think that law enforcement officers need much encouragement to half ass their jobs either.

That's assuming that it is law enforcement officers "half assing their jobs" in this instance...

Good faith protects the officer from the mistakes of others, as I understand it.

You don't understand it then.
"Good faith" protects the officer from the mistakes of others but also protects the officer from penalty for actions taken during the execution of their duties when they are acting in good faith. Good faith is most commonly used as an example in circumstances such as when an officer serves a warrant but the warrant was filled out improperly and the warrant might get served on the wrong John Doe, protecting the officer(and to a lesser extent the department) from legal action by John Doe. The office of the prosecutor is instead the entity that John Doe can seek recourse from.

There is another part of "Good faith" however in that it also contains a litmus test asking whether what the officer did could be considered a "reasonable action". More on that in a second.

In this case it was the officer who was ignorant of the law.

First up? I live in North Carolina. I can tell you right now that in order for my car to pass inspection and be able to be driven, I have to have two functioning brake/tail lights and turning signals.
That is drilled into any teenager or young adult who has taken driver's education here, or any individual who has had to take a driver's test here.

So, do you think it a reasonable action for a police officer to pull a vehicle over for only having one functioning brake light when in order for a vehicle to pass inspection you are required to have two? Or that it is taught in driver's education and to those who get their licenses here?
The answer should be "Yes, that's a reasonable action"--unless of course you're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Stops that don't involve a valid probable cause make me uneasy, even if big brother tells me it's OK for them to do it.

Traffic stops don't need probable cause, but rather require reasonable suspicion.

allegedly because of a brake light which at first failed to illuminate and then flickered on.

He stopped the car because of a problem that was convieniently no longer an issue when he actually talked to the person. I don't like this. Sounds fishy to me. I don't trust cops and one of the biggest reasons I don't trust them is that they never seem to get in trouble for anything. Whenever someone implies that perhaps an officer acted badly in a situation, I just seem to hear a long list of excuses, justifications, and even bullying in their defence. I don't hate cops. I respect the job they do, but I don't like how they band together whenever criticized like a clique of high school girls. I can't trust them if they refuse to hold themselves accountable for their actions. Hiding behind phrases like "good faith" and "reasonable suspicion" is not the kind of thing that inspires confidence. The condescending tone that law and order types tend to take while lecturing others when these things come up indicates an unnerving arrogance and feeling of superiority. You can't trust someone who doesn't respect you.

A light which "at first failed to illuminate and then flickered on" is not one which would pass inspection; as it is not properly functioning.

So yeah, it still would have been an issue "when he actually talked to the person".

I'm "pro-police" in most instances...

And I agree that police needs some sort of "good faith" clause when they are acting in good faith.

However, why can't us "plebes" have that same "good faith" clause? Is our only resort to demand a jury trial?

I don't think you quite understand the point of the "acting in good faith" defense, if you think that you should be able to have the same defense.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think you quite understand the point of the "acting in good faith" defense, if you think that you should be able to have the same defense.

Is it because these officers are empowered by the state, that they should be allowed to say "oops, my bad... but, I had good intention!".

I mean, why can't this chick use this same defense?

Is it because we must treat law enforcement officers differently?

Good Samaritan Law. I know a few states have it

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think you quite understand the point of the "acting in good faith" defense, if you think that you should be able to have the same defense.

Is it because these officers are empowered by the state, that they should be allowed to say "oops, my bad... but, I had good intention!".

I mean, why can't this chick use this same defense?

Is it because we must treat law enforcement officers differently?

If you can't understand the difference between someone who is acting "in good faith" during the course of their job and someone who simply didn't know the different laws between states, I don't know how to help you.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think you quite understand the point of the "acting in good faith" defense, if you think that you should be able to have the same defense.

Is it because these officers are empowered by the state, that they should be allowed to say "oops, my bad... but, I had good intention!".

I mean, why can't this chick use this same defense?

Is it because we must treat law enforcement officers differently?

If you can't understand the difference between someone who is acting "in good faith" during the course of their job and someone who simply didn't know the different laws between states, I don't know how to help you.

Well... parse this out a bit.

Do you believe it's likely that the Pennsylvanian woman thought that her CCW license was applicable in NJ?

The officer believed he understood the law when he pulled the car over.

How are they different? By their actions, both (incorrectly) reasonably understood the law.

Please, re-read the definitions of the good faith doctrine. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the situation you're using as an example.

Because one item is a private citizen with a license issued from a specific state to carry the weapon in that state (though I sympathize with her case and hope for prosecutor discretion). I know my NH license to carry means nothing in MA, nor does a Alabama hunting permit mean squat in Alaska. Ignorance as a private citizen in a licensing issue is a far cry from an Officer completing a routine traffic stop based on (a clearly contentious, as seen in this thread) NC statute.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Please, re-read the definitions of the good faith doctrine. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the situation you're using as an example.

I understand it...

As the SC stated in (Brinegar v. U.S.) "Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability."

I don't have a problem with that...

So, what you have here is that police effectively have a "shield" when conducting unreasonable searches and seizures that doesn't automatically jeopardize a case or the evidence involved.

Read that last sentence:
"But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability."

So again, in the case of the Pennsylvanian woman... don't you think that was a reasonable mistake? And if so, why is she prohibited from using a "Good Faith Doctrine" as a defense?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gunslingerpro wrote:

Because one item is a private citizen with a license issued from a specific state to carry the weapon in that state (though I sympathize with her case and hope for prosecutor discretion). I know my NH license to carry means nothing in MA, nor does a Alabama hunting permit mean squat in Alaska. Ignorance as a private citizen in a licensing issue is a far cry from an Officer completing a routine traffic stop based on (a clearly contentious, as seen in this thread) NC statute.

Why should it matter that this is a "private citizen"?

Are they distinct from Police Officers?

Because the "Good Faith Doctrine" is not the "Anyone Can Make a Mistake Doctrine"?

I really don't know how this is so difficult for you to understand it.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Because the "Good Faith Doctrine" is not the "Anyone Can Make a Mistake Doctrine"?

I really don't know how this is so difficult for you to understand it.

Is it not some sort of "Mulligan" with respect to the Police?

How in the world do you say you understand it if you think it is some kind of "mulligan"?

It's not a "Oops, our bad."

Whembly, you're still misinterpreting the doctrine. It is an exception to the exclusionary rule of evidence. It is not a blanket defense for all actions.

It took them five years to make this decision?

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Please, re-read the definitions of the good faith doctrine. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the situation you're using as an example.

I understand it...

As the SC stated in (Brinegar v. U.S.) "Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability."

I don't have a problem with that...

So, what you have here is that police effectively have a "shield" when conducting unreasonable searches and seizures that doesn't automatically jeopardize a case or the evidence involved.

Read that last sentence:
"But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability."

So again, in the case of the Pennsylvanian woman... don't you think that was a reasonable mistake? And if so, why is she prohibited from using a "Good Faith Doctrine" as a defense?

...

Gun law differences between US states are well enough publicised that they have become the subject of international debate let alone debate within the USA.

I, a Briton living in the UK, know that gun laws differ between say New York, Oregon and Alabama. Is it really unreasonable to expect a person who lives in the USA and actually is subject to those laws to know that there could be a difference and check on it?

To compare with the brake lights issue, I don't think there is a civilised region in the developed world which doesn't require drivers to have operating brake lights. It is so standard even in North Carolina that it forms part of the driving test.

To put it in blunt terms, person who carries a concealed firearm across state line without checking the validity of their state issued licence == fething idiot. Person who assumes the brake lights on a car ought to function == normal competent driver.

Surely you would not claim that NC citizens driving into SC could be immune from having a defective brake light because they think the law of their own state applies elsewhere?

 Jihadin wrote:
Good Samaritan Law. I know a few states have it

Not the same thing or at least not the same thing as I understand it as a law in Illinois. But then again, we have some messed up laws here.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Whembly, you're still misinterpreting the doctrine. It is an exception to the exclusionary rule of evidence. It is not a blanket defense for all actions.

I'm not using it as a blanket defense.

Ignorance of the law != to blanket defense.

I'm getting strange bedfellows in this thread... and it's awesome!

Anyhoo, I'm now convinced that I'm wrong... but I don't like it.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

It is alive, and quite well, but has nothing to do with the decision to make the stop.

 dogma wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

It is alive, and quite well, but has nothing to do with the decision to make the stop.

It has everything to do with how cops interact with the public. Or at least it should.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

It is alive, and quite well, but has nothing to do with the decision to make the stop.

It has everything to do with how cops interact with the public. Or at least it should.

You are innocent until proven guilty applies, but it doesn't mean you are above suspicion. Suspicion =/= a verdict of guilt.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

It is alive, and quite well, but has nothing to do with the decision to make the stop.

It has everything to do with how cops interact with the public. Or at least it should.

You are innocent until proven guilty applies, but it doesn't mean you are above suspicion. Suspicion =/= a verdict of guilt.

Cop love. Blech. Out of here.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

It is alive, and quite well, but has nothing to do with the decision to make the stop.

It has everything to do with how cops interact with the public. Or at least it should.

You are innocent until proven guilty applies, but it doesn't mean you are above suspicion. Suspicion =/= a verdict of guilt.

Cop love. Blech. Out of here.

You sir, have issues.