Supreme Court Upholds North Carolina Traffic Stop

 

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that police officers don't necessarily violate a person's constitutional rights when they stop a car based on a mistaken understanding of the law. The ruling prompted a lone dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who warned that the court's decision could exacerbate public suspicion of police in some communities.

 

...

 

But the Supreme Court, by an 8-1 vote, ruled that since the officer's mistake was reasonable, it did not violate the constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the keystone of the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable search and seizure is the word "unreasonable." And in this case, the officer's belief that having a broken tail light was illegal counted as a reasonable mistake. The traffic stop and the subsequent consensual search of the car were therefore also reasonable."

:popcorn:

Kind of a broad statement for a thread title. I was somewhat surprised by the Supreme Courts decision. There's similar laws in place regarding other aspects of law enforcement. The court usually sides with the officer if they're acting in good faith.

Kind of a broad statement for a thread title. I was somewhat surprised by the Supreme Courts decision. There's similar laws in place regarding other aspects of law enforcement. The court usually sides with the officer if they're acting in good faith.

 

Broad statement? I call it a true statement.

So if the officer doesn't understand the law and makes a mistake, the citizen gets punished not the officer doing his job poorly?

So if the officer doesn't understand the law and makes a mistake, the citizen gets punished not the officer doing his job poorly?

 

Yep. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority on this one, and said, "Because the officer’s mistake about the brake-light law was reasonable, the stop in this case was lawful under the Fourth Amendment."

 

And how about if a citizen screws up and mistakenly breaks a law. Do they get a pass because their accidental violation of the law was reasonable?

"Reasonable" is one of those wishy-washy words that we all have a different opinion. Surprised it was almost a full majority.

Of course they could have refused to let him search the car also...with just a tail light offense do you think he would go get a warrant and if he did, even get it approved?

Supreme Court Upholds North Carolina Traffic Stop

 

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that police officers don't necessarily violate a person's constitutional rights when they stop a car based on a mistaken understanding of the law. The ruling prompted a lone dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who warned that the court's decision could exacerbate public suspicion of police in some communities.

 

...

 

But the Supreme Court, by an 8-1 vote, ruled that since the officer's mistake was reasonable, it did not violate the constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the keystone of the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable search and seizure is the word "unreasonable." And in this case, the officer's belief that having a broken tail light was illegal counted as a reasonable mistake. The traffic stop and the subsequent consensual search of the car were therefore also reasonable."

 

I think what I bolded was their reasoning.

Ignorance of the law doesn't work for the public.

I think what I bolded was their reasoning.

 

...but he shouldn't have been stopped in the first place.

...but he shouldn't have been stopped in the first place.

 

And he shouldn't have consented to a search of the vehicle.

So,it is ok to break the law as long as you end up finding something wrong....eventually?

So,it is ok to break the law as long as you end up finding something wrong....eventually?

His car wouldn't have been searched without consent. This isn't that big of a deal. Once they start searching without consent and that becomes ok, then we have issues. He would need reasonable cause to search a car that he pulled over for a cracked tail light. Without smelling funny smoke or seeing a gun or drugs in the open, he would have a hard time explaining why he needed to get into that car. Just say no to searches.

His car wouldn't have been searched without consent. This isn't that big of a deal. Once they start searching without consent and that becomes ok, then we have issues. He would need reasonable cause to search a car that he pulled over for a cracked tail light. Without smelling funny smoke or seeing a gun or drugs in the open, he would have a hard time explaining why he needed to get into that car. Just say no to searches.

 

Pull someone over for no reason, which is now permitted, then all the officer has to say is he thought he saw something when he approached the vehicle.

Also, IDK but can't you just find a reason to impound the car if someone refuses consent? If you refuse a request by an officer they just become more suspicious.