Supremes Uphold Police Misinterpretation of Law in Ilegal Search and Seizure
Sotomayer was the lone (that's right-LONE) dissent: “One is left to wonder,” she wrote, “why an innocent citizen should be made to shoulder the burden of being seized whenever the law may be susceptible to an interpretative question.” In Sotomayor's view, “an officer’s mistake of law, no matter how reasonable, cannot support the individualized suspicion necessary to justify a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.”
In the War on Drugs and escalating police state-the citizen will lose. Go ahead-argue for this decision-I want to know who I have at my back in the Gulch
In the War on Drugs and escalating police state-the citizen will lose. Go ahead-argue for this decision-I want to know who I have at my back in the Gulch
He issued a warning, not a ticket/violation for the tail light. Which he is allowed to do even if the law does not require you to have more than 1 functioning light. Just like warnings for burned out headlights and the like.
However, since the driver consented to the officer's search request, anything found is allowed as evidence in other charges.
Bottom line, they should have said no to the search. If a search is conducted anyway, anything they find is disallowed as evidence because they search was conducted without consent or a warrant. I believe the only consent that matters in a case like this would be the driver, as operator of the vehicle.
woodlema nit the nail on the head - sadly, but true - as if you have a truck and one of the marker lights are out, it's considered a violation here as well. Being a VC violation (and a pretty well used one) gives the officer the authority to pull you over to cite you (or at least let you know you have a light out) and if you go gifting away your rights after that, well, it's on you.
Who has your back? The initial responsibility for ones back is ones own. You tell the cops "Go ahead and search" and they find something in the search, don't put that on someone else. Heck, you may as well move to Beloit, Wisconsin... I hear the cops there love to ask for a search consent...
for you not for me.
AS non-fiction.
(Got your back, kiddo).
assessing that tax is unconstitutional. . all you
have to do is breathe, and you owe the tax.
this is unreasonable search and seizure, of $$. -- j
Writing the above, I imagined the errant brake light cop finding Cheech and Chong high was kites with a strong smell of pot and an ash tray stuffed with roaches (not the insect kind).
What is an errant brake light cop now to do?
Doing this, big brother is in the fifth row of a cuirassier brigade waving his oo-wee scary sword.
A cuirassier had a straight bladed sword, not a cavalry saber.
A pair of airmen have landed in a Caudron G. III to warn the charging general that the ridge has a huge newly arrived artillery support behind it but the brigadier just rides around them, thirsty for glory.
http://wwiaviation.blogspot.com/2011/05/...
Big brother will walk back in retreat after losing his best friend. He does not even get to use his sword by the way.
And this stuff IS fun to write.
http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Cuirassie...
http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-b...
The Fault is his own.
As a drug dealer OR user you should realize that saying YES to a search request is stupid.
I was told in a creative writing class at Troy State that I have a huge imagination.
Took three such courses. Aced each.
The oldest of 5 brothers, I'm remembered as the story teller during long car trips. That was before I only wanted to listen to Rck n' Roll on the radio when it was called that.
Make me want to talk about myself again. I like it.
See ya.
Hey db, I finally got time to start reading Pendulum of Justice on Sunday and I love it. I didn't want to put it down. I can't wait to finish but it may take me a couple weeks to get back to it. I will post a review when I get done. Such talent we have in the gulch! Nicely done!
Once stopped for a VALID reason, then the officer CAN use "probable cause" to extend the search.
North Carolina:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegis...
Now the specific statute in North Carolina, uses both singular AND plural of the word stop lamp(s) Section g makes clear that any vehicle made after 1955, MUST have at least one stop lamp. Paragraph (d) makes it VERY clear that " shall have all originally equipped rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order." which means NOT broken or burnt out.
§ 20-129.1. Additional lighting equipment required on certain vehicles.
(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.
(g) No person shall sell or operate on the highways of the State any motor vehicle, motorcycle or motor-driven cycle, manufactured after December 31, 1955, unless it shall be equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle. The stop lamp shall display a red or amber light visible from a distance of not less than 100 feet to the rear in normal sunlight, and shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake. The stop lamp may be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps. (1937, c. 407, s. 92; 1939, c. 275; 1947, c. 526; 1955, c. 1157, ss. 3-5, 8; 1957, c. 1038, s. 1; 1967, cc. 1076, 1213; 1969, c. 389; 1973, c. 531, ss. 1, 2; 1979, c. 175; 1981, c. 549, s. 1; 1985, c. 66; 1987, c. 611; 1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 822, s. 1; 1991, c. 18, s. 1; 1999-281, s. 1.)
4Th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now if the officer AFTER stopping the vehicle notices in PLAIN sight an open beer bottle, gun, bongs, or smells pot smoke, (which is VERY distinct), Then the officer has probable cause.
Now let's look at "reasonable AND probable Cause, and please keep in mind this is based on STATE Laws which are the applicable rules. the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction if the State Laws do not violate the constitution, which in this case it does not appear to.
In the individual case being referred to, we must ask a few questions.
1)What was the probable cause? Broken tail light is NOT probable cause.
2)Were there serious issues with the license, registration, and insurance?
The Supremes in this case got it right, and Sotomayer must not be able to actually READ what the state statutes clearly state. Furthermore, the officer was RIGHT not mistaken, unless she was driving something made before 1955.
With 30,000 laws applying to each of us (generous estimate), it is no longer the case that we can 'look at the pillar that Hammurabi had carved and placed in the town square' and know what is legal. So the idea that the cop was allowed, by the Supreme Court, to be 'fallible' is a toehold into an idea that WE may be able to be allowed to be 'fallible' as well. This may be a Good Thing.
Jan
Jan
Reminds me of a joke:
A police officer pulls a guy over for broken tail light and speeding 4 mph over the limit and has the following exchange:
Officer: May I see your driver's license?
Driver: I don't have one. I had it suspended when I got my 5th DUI.
Officer: May I see the owner's card for this vehicle?
Driver: It's not my car. I stole it.
Officer: The car is stolen?
Driver: That's right. But come to think of it, I think I saw the owner's card in the glove box when I was putting my gun in there.
Officer: There's a gun in the glove box?
Driver: Yes sir. That's where I put it after I shot and killed the woman who owns this car and stuffed her in the trunk.
Officer: There's a BODY in the TRUNK?!?!?
Driver: Yes, sir.
Hearing this, the officer immediately called his captain. The car was quickly surrounded by police, and the captain approached the driver to handle the tense situation:
Captain: Sir, can I see your license?
Driver: Sure. Here it is. (It was valid).
Captain: Who's car is this?
Driver: It's mine, officer. Here's the owner's card. (The driver owned the car).
Captain: Could you slowly open your glove box so I can see if there's a gun in it?
Driver: Yes, sir, but there's no gun in it. Sure enough, there was nothing in the glove box.
Captain: Would you mind opening your trunk? I was told you said there's a body in it.
Driver: No problem. (Trunk is opened; no body).
Captain: I don't understand it. The officer who stopped you said you told him you didn't have a license, stole the car, had a gun in the glove box, and that there was a dead body in the trunk.
Driver: Oh Yeah, I'll bet the liar told you I was speeding, too!!!!
So he "ASKED" if he could search, the person said sure. Now regardless of his knowledge, or fear there would be a warrant requested for a search, he/she COMPLIED, making the additional search legal.
Let's suppose they refused. The officer can detain that person or release them, If he detained and waited on a warrant, again no violation of rights.
I guess the REAL answer is DO NOT BE A BRAINDEAD MORON and carry around COCAIN in your car PERIOD!!!!
I am a conceal carry. When I am pulled over I am required to: Roll down window, Place hands on top of steering wheel, and tell the officer I have a permit to carry, and inform him/her if I am or am not currently carrying a weapon.
they KNOW before I even stop that I have a conceal carry, just like they would know that the plate was owned by someone and the assumption is the owner of the plate is driving.
You sure there was no record check on the plate?
Michael Brown was a bully/thug who just robbed a convenience store and roughed up the owner, and the guy in New York had been arrested 31 times before. Don't see these "Liberal Judges pointing that out.
So I say again, you sure there was no check on the license plate when the car was pulled over?
I try not to just spout off opinion without having FACTS floating around to back it up.
HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 13–604. Argued October 6, 2014—Decided December 15, 2014
Following a suspicious vehicle, Sergeant Matt Darisse noticed that onlyone of the vehicle’s brake lights was working and pulled the driver over. While issuing a warning ticket for the broken brake light, Dar¬isse became suspicious of the actions of the two occupants and their answers to his questions. Petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien, the car’sowner, gave Darisse consent to search the vehicle. Darisse found co¬caine, and Heien was arrested and charged with attempted traffick¬ing. The trial court denied Heien’s motion to suppress the seized evi¬dence on Fourth Amendment grounds, concluding that the vehicle’sfaulty brake light gave Darisse reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the relevant code provision, which requires that a car be “equipped with a stop lamp,” N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20–129(g), requires only a single lamp—which Heien’s vehicle had—and therefore the justification for the stop was objectively unreasonable. Reversing in turn, the State Supreme Court held that, even assuming no violation of the state law had occurred, Darisse’s mistaken understanding of the law was rea¬sonable, and thus the stop was valid.
Keep in mind Section (d) which I cited earlier was extremely clear that "(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." making the stop perfectly legal.
Probable cause was established by the " the actions of the two occupants and their answers to his questions." The officer asked for consent which they gave.
http://www.ncappellatecourts.org/search-...
http://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-fi...
Read this. Also in the appellate brief, checks were run, and when you read this you will have to agree that there was certainly something odd going on. One guy said they were going to Kentucky, and one said they were going to West Virginia.
Read some facts on this case and you will probably agree that the Supreme Court got this one very right.
:)
The most recent "Choking" death of a poor downtrodden minority by the police comes to mind. The police were acting reasonably in carrying out the arrest. The arrestee died because he was a fat ass with a health condition and he resisted. The question is whether he should of even been arrested for selling individual cigarettes and thereby denying the state of its tax revenue. A ridiculous reason to be requiring the police to arrest anyone.
if this does not offend you...well...
I've said in the past "The Founding Fathers laid the corner stone of a justice system, but today we have a legal system and the two are not the same." The legal system is totally out of control. Especially when laws are passed before we even know what's in them.
OK, lets have a bit of fun. Two bills come before the NY State legislature addressing the same issue. Which one will pass? Answer: The one that generates the most revenue for lawyers.
that a stoner would buy Doritos at the local
convenience store, and thus conduct a search
at the door of anyone buying Doritos. . this is ok? -- j