Hah, Cheech and Chong! Al, you crack me up and drag up some rather "interesting" memories. Ah, the fun we had when T-Rex walked the earth. Oh, I'm second of 5. Four brothers, sister is the youngest. Yes, we spoiled her rotten!

Perhaps a Hall Of Famer, LOL. However, I have relatives and friends who were/are cops and they all have stories of helping some poor soul out of a jam along the road of life. I also have a number of experiences where I just "knew" I was being hassled, but not being an a**hole towards the officer in question was always the right thing to do. I certainly would NOT reach out and bitch slap him/her as has recently occurred.

But the Supreme Court did not rule that the officer was correct in his interpretation of the law (which he may have been, per your analysis). They ruled that it was OK for the officer to be fallible in his interpretation of the law. He then took all of the correct steps: He asked the driver for permission to search the car. (If you had illegal drugs in your trunk, it would make sooooo much sense to give that permission...Just sayin'.)

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

No however you learn your rights I. School. If you do not know your rights again that is your fault. Next Helen the person was hiding cocain. Obviously this person knew that was illegal.

Well, it was NOT a violation to have one of the brake lights out under North Carolina law. The cop was wrong on that. That's what made it a close case.

Yes, it was. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, makes exactly your argument and explicitly states we have a right to "reasonable" police not "perfect" ones.

I'm not following. Are you saying that the North Carolina vehicle inspection, drivers' education courses and license examination teach people that they have a right to refuse a search at a traffic stop? If so, bully for North Carolina. Even so, I strongly suspect many people don't know this. They do know about the necessity for search warrants and advisement of Miranda rights during custodial interrogations because of TV and the Miranda decision itself, but it is rare for a cop to advise of the right to refuse vehicle searches and it is virtually never shown on TV or in the movies. How could it hurt to do so?

We always hear bitching about criminals getting off on a technicality. If this guy had got off that would be what everyone would be bitching about. In this case the court found correctly. The police made an inconsequential error so the "perp" should not have got off as a result. Now as to the "Crime" in question....that is a different story. Should the government be prosecuting such "Crimes" ? [ IE: possession of "illegal" drugs]

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.

Nice research. Thanks.

This is where "Ignorance is no excuse" applies. Also, when you have a car especially in North Carolina you submit to a vehicle inspection EVERY year, so you should know the rules of the road, in addition you have taken at 15 or 16 a drivers ed course where these laws and rules are clearly discussed and you have to pass an exam both written and practical to get your license. Taking all this into account are we to assume that any licensed driver is ignorant of the rules they voluntarily comply with to drive on state roads? I assume or would assume that all drivers should be aware of their rights as it pertains to vehicles. If they are not don't blame the cops, blame themselves for not taking the time to educate themselves on rules and laws that are available to everyone in a multitude of formats.

It's lunch and I'm hungry. I have bacon, lettuce, oops not sure about tomatoes. Did I use 'em up?
See ya.

Let me put it this way. I am never allowed to misinterpret the law as a defense for my actions. Now the Supremes have ruled police CAN. take this out all the way-don't look like a long haired hippy freak, don't drive a red sports car, don't wear a short skirt, don't let your lawn go to pot (ha!). this is outrageous and gives police further powers which is the EXACT opposite of what the police should have. If they indeed work for us, what they can do should be tightly prescribed

I'm the youngest of five girls. Lol

The probable cause for the stop was purportedly the one burned out brake light. There were no license or registration issues at all. As noted above, the driver gave consent to the search. So the question for the Court was whether the evidence secured during the search (cocaine) was admissible at trial where the policeman mistakenly thought he had a reason to stop the car at all. Since the statute was somewhat poorly drafted and spoke of the brake lamp requirement in both the singular and plural, the Court deemed it a reasonable mistake on the part of the cop. Long ago the Court decided a reasonable mistake of law or fact can act to allow an otherwise improper warrantless search. Relying on that precedent and the statute at issue here, the Court forgave the cop and upheld the conviction. To me, two issues are raised: First, why do cops get the benefit of the doubt in this situation? In other words, why does the agent of the state get cut slack on an issue that goes to the core of our constitutional rights? Aren't the earlier precedents wrongly decided? Second, on the issue of consent to a search, why don't we have a Miranda rule of sorts applicable here. Shouldn't the cops have an obligation to inform the driver that he has the right to refuse the search? I'm guessing many people don't realize they have the right to refuse the search. They should be told.

Thanks for the link. I have nothing to hide in my car but I'd rather not have a nosy cop find my legal hand cannon in the glove compartment beside an open jackknife. I also keep a couple of police batons in the trunk (I'm a retired state corrections officer). That's just in case of an attack from the rear on old guy me when loading groceries or whatever.

go on...

If you look back into your "not so young" years, would you say that this was a Hall of Fame exception? In fact, that has happened to me once, but it was only once and when I look back into my "not so young" years, all of interractions with police were either negative or of absolutely no benefit to me at all. In other words, they were either collecting taxes on the highway or, when crimes did happen, they filled out reports. And this is not coming from a bad guy (well, I've never been convicted...)

I'm and old wannabe novel writer. My current attempt is called "Chasing Little Red," set in Belgium at the start of World War One. Gives a retired dino something to do.
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.

I guess I have to go along with the courts decision on this one. To do otherwise, you would have to expect all police officers to have passed the bar exam and be well practiced at the law to always make the right decision and to be paid accordingly. I would expect the police to be "in the ballpark" enough to notice "something ain't right", make a reasonable call based on the current situation, and let the legal battle take place in court afterwards. I suspect the court was thinking the same thing.

Cop change a tire. Believe it or not, it does happen. I was crossing the Susquehanna outside of Harrisburg, Pa. when I hit some debris on the bridge and got a flat on my Ram 1500 with the big wheels. Within a minute a police officer pulled up behind me, turned on his lights for safety, and then noticing I'm not so young anymore, the twenty-something officer changed the tire for me. I'll always be grateful for that because those tires are heavy and so was the traffic.

the person was stopped for a broken brake light-actually one brake light worked, which is still legal for driving. The driver consented to a search of teh vehicle. (NEVER consent to your vehicle being searched). Cocaine was found and he was arrested for drug trafficking. Here is where the confusion is-because states and federal have not always agreed on this and the appellate court did rule in favor of the defendant on 4th Amendment grounds. 1st. Is it fair to say that an officer may stop and search if he thinks you have committed a crime? In this case, the officer thought the law was busted brake light is a violation. The officer was wrong. 2. The citizen may never use as defense that he misunderstood or misinterpreted the law. This gives police a clear advantage in stopping people. You must not only not appear to be violating any laws, you must also anticipate what an officer might interpret as a violation.
http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-b...

Ouch - the driver failed the first rule of any police engagement - never consent to any search. Period. As soon as Mr. Heien (the owner of the vehicle) gave consent to search, it was over, ESPECIALLY if he knew there was illicit drugs in the car - if there was any time to deny a search request, that would have been it. That it made it to SCotUS amazes me, as it's a cut and dried case.

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...

You're imagining a lot.

Because it ended in a "good" result, I can understand the court's desire to side with the police. However, (and I never thought I ever would say this) Sotomayor is right and the others seem to be unaware of the true meaning of the word LAW. And, they're a bunch of lawyers, yet.
(Got your back, kiddo).

Was this a combined effort? A disadvantage of reading this on a kindle app on my phone is I don't learn about the writer or writers until the end of the book. K, you are included. Many compliments!