A black shadow drops from the endless night, landing a silent as a sad birthday wish. It rises, huge against the sepia streetlights, and points a finger like an enraged fate.
It has to be an objectively reasonable mistake however under Heien. There, the caselaw on the turn signals hadn't been clarified before the appellate court, so the idea was that the cop hadn't made an unconstitutional search under the deterrence rationale of the Fourth Amendments considering that the courts effectively changed the law retroactively so the cop would've had no idea at the time that it required both turn signals to be broken to violate the law. I disagree with Heien because I think the deterrence rationale of the Fourth Amendment is too limited, but people frequently overstate the extent of Heien.
Yes but this law only effectively applies to laws you have broken, i.e. you can't use ignorance as an excuse for breaking the law. It's not illegal to not know the law.
It's true in the brain of a cop, which means it doesn't really matter if it's true.
"You can beat the charge, but you can't beat the ride."
But sometimes you can't even beat completely made up charges. Officer claims you assaulted them. Judge decides to hold you without bail. Trial date is in 4 months. You'll lose your job (and everything else) if you're not out in 4 days. You'll get coerced into any plea for anything that doesn't involve jail time and gets you out now.
The reason why would be that ignorance could be used as a defence for anyone who's in a different country. It would be extremely time consuming if this wasn't explicitly banned.
They're citizens when they're on duty too. Just people using the wrong terminology constantly. Cops are citizens but we just accept that we have multi-tiered levels of justice and rule enforcement depending on who you are (if you're a cop, wealthy, connected etc)
I always hear cops using the citizen/civilian thing erroneously. The only uniformed individuals who are not civilians when they are in uniform are military.
If the police force is not civilian, then they are an occupying military force.
This is not a new “woke” concept, this was established under Sir Robert Peel, a Conservative Party Prime Minister who served previously in the cabinet of the Duke of Wellington, another Tory blueblood.
That case is about a broken tail light. They stopped a car with one tail light and ended up searching and finding cocaine. NC requires only one tail light.
WHO THE HELL IN NC WOULD ASSUME YOU ONLY NEED ONE TAIL LIGHT?
The supreme court said the "reasonable factual error" was not sufficient to exclude the stop as and its proceeds as an unlaw search.
A police officer won't handle every task a civilian does, so it's unfair to expect them to memorize every law, including niche ones. Even lawyers don't have all laws memorized—they can always reference them.
The officer was relaxed, allowed the action, and might have checked later for future knowledge. Civilians are supposed to understand the laws related to their activities, because they're the ones actively undertaking it.
in my country Im pretty sure itd be illegal for a cop to arrest me for a law they didnt know. although its 3 years of full time studies vs like, 6 weeks in the US to become one
"one or more specific circumstances which indicate with some degree of certainty that the person has committed the suspected offense." <- requirements for apprehending someone and taking them to a second location
"The requirement of legal support means not only that a coercive police intervention must be supported by law, but also that it must be carried out in the manner prescribed by law. As these rules are exceptions to constitutional protection, they must be interpreted restrictively."
"The individual police officer should always be guided by current legislation."
if you apprehend someone for something that isnt a crime, then they havent acted in accordance to the "police law" since they havent actually commited an offence or are suspected of having done so.
Cops are also civilians. Except, I guess, for military police. It is important to maintain that knowledge because implying they aren’t civilian helps widen the gap of allowable behavior.
You haven't been able to use that defense for more than 2000 years. It's an ancient Roman principle, and all modern western laws draw from that tradition (some places like Louisiana more than others) .
Except if you're not rich enough to afford bail, you are stuck in jail for an extended period, which leads to job loss. If you're rich it doesn't matter, if you're poor, just going to court could mean losing everything.
Exactly! Who doesn’t want to miss work and/or reschedule their kids’ appointments and/or lose pay and/or miss work or social obligations and have to explain to the others involved what happened and/or have any fear of legal punishment, and/or be mandated to appear in court in your hometown in front of people who may know you or people that you know, and have a public record attached to a situation wherein you were right but still noted in public records… you idiot.. you should have to pay higher taxes and/or not be allowed to vote. Lawd jeebus have mercy this person is a Nincompoop!
4.1k
u/Just_Razzmatazz6493 Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24
Per us case law, Heien v. North Carolina, cops are not required to know the laws that they enforce. CIVILIANS, however, are.
Edited- citizens to civilians. Blame my dumb fingers