Supreme Court Says Police Mistakes Can Still Lead to Valid Arrests
Source: NBC
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a police officer's mistaken idea of the law doesn't make an arrest and a search invalid, as long as the officer's understanding of the law was reasonable. The case evolved from a traffic stop in 2009, in which Nicholas Heien was pulled over on Interstate 77 in North Carolina by a county sheriff's deputy because one of his brake lights was out. After getting permission to search the car, the deputy found a baggie of cocaine, and Heien was charged with drug trafficking.
But it turned out North Carolina law did not require cars to have two brake lights. The state law said they must have "a" stop lamp on the rear and elsewhere referred to "the" stop lamp, meaning the deputy was apparently wrong about the law. Heien's lawyer backed by civil liberties groups said if a law wasn't being broken, there was no authority to arrest him or conduct a search. But by a 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court said the arrest and the search were valid, even if the officer was wrong about the law. The Fourth Amendment bars "unreasonable" searches and seizures, the court said. "To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials," said the opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The lone dissenter, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said an officer's mistake about the law, no matter how reasonable, "cannot support the individualized suspicion necessary" to justify an arrest. The nation's courts were sharply divided on this issue, though most said if an officer is wrong, the arrest doesn't count.
Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-says-police-mistakes-can-still-lead-valid-arrests-n268591
"To be reasonable is not to be perfect" -- Awesome!
cstanleytech
(26,229 posts)reasonable mistake and a minor mistake is one thing if its major one though the evidence will probably be thrown out if its from an illegal search.
Faux pas
(14,644 posts)the new amerikkka, corporate owned and police state run.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Big problem right there. NEVER give them permission to search, even if you're 100% sure you have nothing on you.
If they have to ask, then "no" is the correct answer.
Sorry, I got slightly off topic
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)Never; never, ever consent to a search. Even if you have nothing to hide, the cop may be having a bad day, may decide to screw you over and plant some thing in your car.
The moment you consent, you open your self to a whole world of hurt and you are dependant of the cop's goodwill and professionalism. A suckers bet if you ask me.
/pass this on to any children you may have.
/ my youngest get stopped several time for driving late at night while young.
/He always very politely declines the officers request.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Unless you called them, they are NOT there to help you. Never consent to a search, and only answer the questions you MUST answer.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and, based on the facts, I have to agree with the holding.
The arrest was because cocaine was found during a consented to search.
Had Heien been arrested (or detained), then, the vehicle searched (without consent or attendant to the inventorying of a vehicle being towed/impounded0, and then, the cocaine was found, both the arrest and the search would have been tossed.
SamKnause
(13,087 posts)I am not familiar with the case.
I disagree with the judgment.
He should not have been stopped at all.
He was not breaking any law.
He would not have given consent, if he had not been stopped.
That' just my two cents worth.
P.S. I am 61 years old.
This country has too many laws and restrictions.
They can usually be traced back to the war on drugs.
It has devastated millions of lives in this country.
It has been responsible for the deaths of many.
Young, old, guilty, innocent, black or white.
The drug war has negatively effected this country in enormous ways.
I am tired of the two tier justice system.
White collar crime and police brutality are given the green light.
The smallest infraction by the working class and the system is on you like a pit bull.
I disagree vehemently with this ruling.
Have a safe and pleasant evening.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The unjustified stop invalidated everything subsequent.
These guys work for us, don't they? From the police officer right up to the Supreme Court justices.
By God, we got some crappy employees, don't we?
We ought to do something about it.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)What if a kidnapped kid were found in the trunk? Release the kid but let the kidnapped go on their way? Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. If the search were conducted illegally, I'd agree. But it wasn't.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Equating some coke to a kidnapped kid doesn't make sense.
If you believe we should be subject to random stops and searched at the discretion of law enforcement, contrary to our Constitutional rights, then we disagree - but you can make a valid argument which I just don't accept.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)have any understanding of the laws they hired to enforce. ,,,,,geeez.... people we are fucked!
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)I have informed quite a few. A few know the law quite well. I had one who took my landlady to jail after she locked us out of our apartment without legal paperwork. She was released only after she agreed to allow us back in.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)As others say, never give the police permission to search your property without a warrant. ever. Even if you have nothing to hide, never do it. This is your right, and is one that should be exercised every time.
However, the precedent and the argument for it, basically removes ANY restrictions on how police officers operate... So long as a cop can shrug and say "I didn't know that" then anything he does is presumed to be okay.
7962
(11,841 posts)Dont you think they'll just make you wait till they DO get a warrant? So you sit there for hours waiting? Or does it not work that way?
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)Most traffic stops aren't enough for probable cause to search your car. A busted brake light, speeding, or running a red light do not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion that you are concealing contraband.
Police ask if they can search on the off chance that you will consent. I'm always amazed at how often people let them.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)That's the beauty of the war on (some) drugs: cops are more likely to pull people over because they can ask that question, and X% of people will consent to a search even if they know they have something on them, because it can be scary to say "no" to a cop.
The Drug War started it, and 9/11 finished it.
7962
(11,841 posts)and when you question that, they say "you dont know what to look for".
I wouldnt put any of that past them. Just to flaunt the power and piss us off
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)I guess that is only a one way street.
cstanleytech
(26,229 posts)mistaken about the law over stopping someone because the officer thinks its against the law for a brake light being out is not something to proclaim the sky is falling.
Also I do not believe many police will try abusing it because if there is suddenly a major outbreak of such mistakes it goes past reasonable to planned which means it puts the police departments on the hook to be sued.
For example take the police department that was involved in this case, no officer for their department will probably be able to use the brake light excuse against because if they do then a court can (and should) throw any evidence out because its not reasonable that they should make the same mistake again.
Delver Rootnose
(250 posts)...nation comming to. It used to be any search not based on a legal reason was not considered reasonable. Now they can make it up as they go along and if you don't like it they can say they feel threatened and kill you.
evirus
(852 posts)Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)of the law to know the law?
cstanleytech
(26,229 posts)still human and they make mistakes.
Hell even lawyers mistakes and they have years of college studying the law.
Hekate
(90,552 posts)Ay-yi-yi.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)To be lawfully accurate, that is...
Hockey Dad
(70 posts)Shall I elaborate?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Also known as - "Cut it now. We can measure it later, even if it doesn't work."
Thus, they are allowed to make up law on the spot. Nothing new.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)exboyfil
(17,862 posts)possession of cocaine should not be illegal, but how about if they came across a murder victim in the search?
Folks are saying consent for the search should not have been given. We hear plenty of stories of what happens in that case (latest one was a driver who was slapped and his car was searched anyway).
bemildred
(90,061 posts)In the realm of shallow humor: "Many true words were spoken through false teeth."
Vattel
(9,289 posts)this case does seem like a pretty close case. The relevant law says that cars must be equipped with "a stop lamp." Thus, one brake light is enough. But the majority thought that a police officer could reasonably think that the law required two working brake lights. I disagree, but the decision is not crazy.
jayfish
(10,037 posts)let's say I'm a driving a long stretch of straight road. At the beginning of my journey the posted speed limit is 75 mph. Somewhere along the drive the posted speed drops to 55 mph but; it's late at night and the sign is obstructed by foliage. You can really come up with any excuse you like. I continue to drive 75 mph, get pulled over and receive a ticket for traveling 75 mph in a 55 mph zone. Wouldn't I be able to successfully argue that it was reasonable for me to think that the speed limit was still 75 mph at the time I was pulled over?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)not a supposedly unconstitutional search and seizure. Secondly, if you chose to contest the ticket you would be able to present your evidence showing that the 55 MPH speed limit sign was obsured. Not really the same thing.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)it does seem pretty reasonable for you to believe the speed limit was 75.
sir pball
(4,737 posts)Well, it was daytime, but at any rate...I got dinged and immediately drove back to snap a picture of the hidden sign. Prosecutor took a look at the picture and let me off no problem.