Yup, when a cop makes a "mistake" by searching a car without first asking if he can. That then becomes OK because hay, it was just an honest mistake.

He CONSENTED to the search.

The Fault is his own.

As a drug dealer OR user you should realize that saying YES to a search request is stupid.

I already read this on the 15th. If you read the entire opinion you will see that there is no holding that it was reasonable to search the vehicle absent permission. Permission was given, that's why the search was deemed OK. But the determining issue in this case was whether the stop itself was proper given the cops misunderstanding of the North Carolina tail light law. That is the issue which got the case to the Supreme Court, not whether "there was certainly something odd going on." And, by the way, I didn't say the Court didn't get this one "very right" given the state of the law. I questioned the precedents upon which they relied which allow the officer to conduct a search based on a "reasonable" mistake of law or fact without consequence. Moreover, I posited that an individual pulled over in his vehicle should be informed that he has the right to refuse a search. This would be a change in the law. I say again, how would it hurt anyone to inform them of the law in this respect?

y'know, even if o'care IS a tax, the method of
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

well, let's see. . the police might think it reasonable
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

wood, yes, let's splice legal jargon...seriously. on the ground, at the time, no one was in harm, no harm was imminent...seriously. get a grip on understanding the law vs. just riding your bike on the sidewalk and ruffling someone's hem. HELLO

well actually, WE are at fault. We can control every aspect of police training, monitoring, resources, direction, implementation...down to the city level. we do it poorly. WE don't care until we're hugely alarmed. You and I have complete control over police academies. why are we not involved up in there HUGELY? we aren't interested in that. no one cares,until it's their anal cavity searched on the side of the road http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=body...
if this does not offend you...well...

Here are some facts. I did the research for you. Please take the time to look it up and read it all. Especially the appellate brief I provided the link to.

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.

We have to have police, they are not always at fault. They only do the bidding of the elected officials. The politicians are the problem not the poor schlubs carrying out the laws.

someday we are going to play with those costumes in the flesh ;)

Sure they're at fault. An attacker takes his victim as he finds him. Vosberg v. Putney.

It was for selling cigarettes. I saw the video and he complained about them hassling him over selling cigarettes. I also saw the take down. They did it as gently as they could. He resisted and was a fat-ass with a health condition, so he ended up dying. The police are not at fault in this situation, the individual is as are the politicians that required the police to arrest someone for doing something as innocuous as selling individual cigarettes. As far as the "Choke hold" is concerned, it was properly done. I have used this hold many times [I am not a police officer] and had it used on me. It will not injure a healthy person when used as it was done in this situation.

If there was, it yielded nothing of significance. And no reason to detain.

I have some Indian costumes left over from Hallowe'en...and Thanksgiving!

zzzzziiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnggggg!!!!!!

Even if they had cause to arrest Garner (which is tricky because they stopped him for getting in the way of a fight -- not for selling cigs) -- he didn't use any force, he died, therefore automatic murder as far as I'm concerned. If four cops who have a guy down on the ground don't feel "safe" without choking him to death, what moron allowed them to have guns and badges?

If the courts are going to let a cop get away with enforcing a nonexistent law due to "good faith" then it should be willing to forgive even greater levels of ignorance by you and me. Cops are the official experts, it's their duty to know the law before enforcing it.

That happens, and may even be representative of some police agencies, but it's a distraction here. Whether the bad cops are 90% of all cops or 1%, they need to be stripped of badge and gun and put away lest the people justifiably declare war on all cops. If you're a good cop, prove it by blowing the whistle on the next bad cop you see.

Look who wrote the dissenting opinion. The same mindset that brought you "I can't breathe" and "Hand up don't shoot".

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?

The current hole I'm working on is the piece of a subplot. Little Red's oldest brother in the French Army is charging a ridge defended along the slope by "filthy boche" riflemen, Maxim machine guns and 12 77mm field guns on top.
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...

There is nothing in the opinion or the dissent which indicated that there was a record check or if there was that there was any relevant information. Believe me, if there had been info obtained which gave cause for arrest, detention or search it would have been noted in the opinion. In fact it would have mooted the issues decided.

Fill then in, Allosaur, and have fun doing it.

There certainly are enough laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations to choke us all to death, even if we did pass the bar exam. This case seems to recognize that fact and gives policemen some slack in legal interpretation and perhaps even legal ignorance in some cases. Someone else in this thread mentioned this may give the citizen a defense regarding ignorance of the law. I hope so. So who made the law that ignorance of the law is no excuse? Maybe that law needs to be scrapped.

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.

It sounds like you've never been to Camp BOHICA.

:)

pull down your pants and bend over...NO ONE in THE 50s HAD TO DO THIS!!