Here's what I had to say about it in another discussion I had about this on Facebook:

 

To me, the danger of this decision is made much simpler were you to remove the bag of coke that was found in Heien's car from the scenario. What if there is no criminal act involved - at all?

 

In that scenario, you have a police officer pulling someone over without any laws having been violated, and then after having stopped an individual who isn't clear on their 4th amendment rights, that officer tears through the persons car for 30 minutes to find nothing but gum wrappers and some loose change. Now that guy (who broke no laws) has to put everything back in his car, and might end up having to take a rear end chewing at work for showing up 30-45 minutes late, and might have something go down on record in his personnel file for showing up late at work as well. And what instigated the whole thing? A police officer who, in the eyes of the law, did absolutely nothing wrong by incorrectly pulling that person over for not having violated any laws.

 

What if the vehicle owner in question is an hourly worker at his job, and he's now almost an hour late for work? Then the officer has literally taken money out of that guy's pocket - for not having violated any law in the first place.

 

What happens if the officer incorrectly determines that he had just cause and searches the guy's car - to find nothing?

 

So it goes full circle here, protecting those who aren't clear on the law and acting in good faith. Not sure you'll find a happy answer that solves everything.

 

Not really. You can be arrested merely on suspicion.

 

Suspicion of what?

What about my scenario up in post #26? You're not concerned with people having their rights infringed upon like that? If I were living paycheck to paycheck, you can be damn sure I'd be mad to be held up an hour from clocking in at work.

 

The last search of a vehicle I witnessed lasted about 5 minutes. Like NKU stated the grounds for the search and the length of time it takes have to be reasonable.

 

The only problem I had was Barney Fife wanting to arrest me over a shrub seed.

 

I must have missed where you said he wanted to arrest you.

I must have missed where you said he wanted to arrest you.

 

If his coworker had not been there I'm sure off to jail I go,and court here I come...

Guilty until proven innocent...$$$...

The ruling said that the pullover was a mistake of law. That is the difference.

 

Well, I didn't read the entirety of Justice Roberts' opinion, so it may have specifically said that it ONLY applies to pullovers, but it seems like a very slippery slope when you say an officer is justified to pull someone over who hasn't actually broken a law. I don't like the idea if impeding on anyone's day to day life when they have done nothing wrong in the first place.

 

If his coworker had not been there I'm sure off to jail I go,and court here I come...

Guilty until proven innocent...$$$...

 

That's not correct. The burden of proof would still be on the state to prove you had drugs.

That's not correct. The burden of proof would still be on the state to prove you had drugs.

 

Like I said...Court here I come.$$$...

 

Like I said...Court here I come.$$$...

 

But that didn't happen...right?

Like an open container...

Of alcohol? Unless it's in the trunk, it's illegal. So yeah, that would likely get you arrested.

About 18 years ago I was arrested for DUI and the cop searched my car.He also asked my friend where's the coke at? The officer told my buddy that I said he had coke on him which was a huge lie. I ended up with a reckless driving charge and a speeding ticket. That was the most expensive two beers I've ever had.

Were you speeding and driving recklessly?

 

Yeah, I retract my earlier statement, they would probably search you car if you are DUI. But, then you're breaking the law so wouldn't that warrant a search?

I have common ground on both sides of debates when it comes to police.

 

What does drive me nuts a little is the same people never see anything wrong when it comes to cops.

 

If ignorance of law isn't an excuse for a common citizen it also should not be an excuse for a police officer. .

 

There isn't anything radical about that opinion.

I don't think anyone is saying there aren't bad cops. No one is saying cops don't make mistakes either. My problem is, these days, it seems like cop hating is the in thing. Until they need a cop for something, that is.

I don't think anyone is saying there aren't bad cops. No one is saying cops don't make mistakes either. My problem is, these days, it seems like cop hating is the in thing. Until they need a cop for something, that is.

 

I don't hate cops and I know they have a hard job. I'm not even blaming cops. This is a discussion about a supreme court ruling. Cops don't have control over the higher courts ruling so why would I be criticizing cops.

 

My point is only that I don't like a slippery slope that says if a cop doesn't know the law but acts in good faith it's OK when the same can't be applied to a normal everyday citizen.

I don't hate cops and I know they have a hard job. I'm not even blaming cops. This is a discussion about a supreme court ruling. Cops don't have control over the higher courts ruling so why would I be criticizing cops.

 

My point is only that I don't like a slippery slope that says if a cop doesn't know the law but acts in good faith it's OK when the same can't be applied to a normal everyday citizen.

Oh trust me, I wasn't saying you hate cops, just pointing out how popular it's become.

 

I get your point about ignorance of the law, but the police are going to get more wiggle room than the average Joe, just the way it is and has always been.

Oh trust me, I wasn't saying you hate cops, just pointing out how popular it's become.

 

I get your point about ignorance of the law, but the police are going to get more wiggle room than the average Joe, just the way it is and has always been.

 

And I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that unless we are talking about a life or death situation for the cop.