WOW! Sotomayor the lone voice of reason in 4th Amendment case

[LagerHead]

In what is sure to be a shock to conservatives and libertarians alike, Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor is the lone voice of reason in a case involving 4the Amendment rights. In short, a guy was stopped for having a busted tail light in NC which, at the time, was not an offense as you were required to only have a single "stop lamp." The stop resulted in a search which resulted in a drug bust. The majority basically said that the search was legal because it was "reasonable" for an officer to not know such an incredibly simple piece of the law. What a crock!

 

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/15/supreme-court-sides-with-police-in-4th-a

[Ugly]

May be because she was never a judge before and isn't tainted yet (hahaha)

 

This is absurd to me, does that mean if we the citizen makes a mistake in understanding the law we get a pass?

 

She is absolutely right!

 

Lord help us all!

[MacGyver]

These are surely strange times we live in...

[Jonnin]

she has actually turned out to be pretty good *considering* my expectations, which were near zero.  Still not saying much, but shes not the worst person they could have found. 

[Oh Shoot]

May be because she was never a judge before and isn't tainted yet (hahaha)

 

Note: she had been Federal District Judge and Federal Appeals Court Judge for 17 years.

 

- OS

[LagerHead]

she has actually turned out to be pretty good *considering* my expectations, which were near zero.  Still not saying much, but shes not the worst person they could have found. 

 

The devil you know, right?

[No_0ne]

Note: she had been Federal District Judge and Federal Appeals Court Judge for 17 years.

 

- OS

 

There you go again, OS, interrupting a perfectly good rant with facts ...

[surfabilly]

This is absurd to me, does that mean if we the citizen makes a mistake in understanding the law we get a pass?

i thought this same thing. how many times have we all heard "ignorance of the law is not a defense."?

would this open up reasonable ignorance as a valid defense in other cases?

what about the case in franklin with the council women who carried into an admin building while the school board was is session?

[DaveTN]

The driver consented to a search. This case probably would not have gone this far had he not done that.
Don’t drive around with a broken taillight when you are drug trafficking.

Sounds to me what the Officer did was a standard practice prior to this case. There have been a ton of court rulings that if the Officer made a mistake, but it was in good faith; the case goes forward. The word “unreasonable” is in the 4th amendment; it was put there for a reason. The Officer had permission to search and what he stopped the vehicle for he thought (and may well be) was a violation.
 

B_) There is little difficulty in concluding that Officer Darisse’s er¬ror of law was reasonable. The North Carolina vehicle code that re¬quires “a stop lamp” also provides that the lamp “may be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps,” N. C. Gen. Stat.Ann. §20–129(g), and that “all originally equipped rear lamps” must be “in good working order,” §20–129(d). Although the State Court of Appeals held that “rear lamps” do not include brake lights, the word “other,” coupled with the lack of state-court precedent interpreting the provision, made it objectively reasonable to think that a faulty brake light constituted a violation. Pp. 12–13.
367 N. C. 163, 749 S. E. 2d 278, affirmed.

Here is the law...

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.

Edited December 16, 2014 by DaveTN

[Ugly]

Note: she had been Federal District Judge and Federal Appeals Court Judge for 17 years.

- OS

I got her mixed up with the other appointed liberal,
They all look the same to me

[E4 No More]

Don't consent to a search...period.

[btq96r]

First thought I had on this was how easily something similar could have happened when vehicle carry without a permit became law. 

[LagerHead]

Don't consent to a search...period.

 

I think this is the takeaway from this case. 

[A.J. Holst]

How about don't roll around dirty? How high do you have to be to consent to a search with contraband in your car?

Kids, crack is whack

[E4 No More]

How about don't roll around dirty? How high do you have to be to consent to a search with contraband in your car?

Kids, crack is whack

You'd be surprised at how many do consent because the LEO says something along the lines of give me consent to search or I'll hold you while I call the K-9 unit who will alert and give me PC to search anyway.

[btq96r]

You'd be surprised at how many do consent because the LEO says something along the lines of give me consent to search or I'll hold you while I call the K-9 unit who will alert and give me PC to search anyway.

 

Or they'll just do it like this guy did. 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=290_1415427089#6I0uHklRFeBjTt2k.99

[E4 No More]

Or they'll just do it like this guy did. 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=290_1415427089#6I0uHklRFeBjTt2k.99

Yeah, that too. It's a real friggen shame to see LEO's acting that way. I'm sure that they'll win whatever lawsuit. Assault, violation of 4th, and I can imagine perhaps unlawful detention if there was no PC and they were told they cannot leave.