Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
tl;dr version:
Ignorance of the law is no defense...unless you're an agent of the state, then you're free to do whatever you want because it's a "good faith" exception.
The issue wasn't a 'good faith' exception. It was that the officer's interpretation of the law was reasonable. Which satisfies the requirements that a search be reasonable.
tl;dr version:
Ignorance of the law is no defense...unless you're an agent of the state, then you're free to do whatever you want because it's a "good faith" exception.
The issue wasn't a 'good faith' exception. It was that the officer's interpretation of the law was reasonable. Which satisfies the requirements that a search be reasonable.
Did you bother to read what you JUST quoted? It clearly states the cops got permission from both people.I doubt this counts as an 'abolishment' of the 4th Amendment. Heien's friend agreed for the car to be searched.
HUH? Show me where they consented - why the fuck would they move to suppress if they consented ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
"
Two men were in the car: Maynor Javier Vasquez sat behind the wheel, and petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien lay across the rear seat. Sergeant Darisse explained to Vasquez that as long as his license and registration checked out, he would receive only a warning ticket for the broken brake light. A records check revealed no problems with the documents, and Darisse gave Vasquez the warning ticket. But Darisse had become suspicious during the course of the stop—Vasquez appeared nervous, Heien remained lying down the entire time, and the two gave inconsistent answers about their destination. Darisse asked Vasquez if he would be willing to answer some questions. Vasquez assented, and Darisse asked whether the men were transporting various types of contraband. Told no, Darisse asked whether he could search the Escort. Vasquez said he had no objection, but told Darisse he should ask Heien, because Heien owned the car. Heien gave his consent, and Darisse, aided by a fellow officer who had since arrived, began a thorough search of the vehicle. In the side compartment of a duffle bag, Darisse found a sandwich bag containing cocaine. The officers arrested both men. 366 N. C. 271, 272–273, 737 S. E. 2d 351, 352–353 (2012); App. 5–6, 25, 37.
The State charged Heien with attempted trafficking in cocaine. Heien moved to suppress the evidence seized from the car, contending that the stop and search had violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. After a hearing at which both officers testified and the State played a video recording of the stop, the trial court denied the suppression motion, concluding that the faulty brake light had given Sergeant Darisse reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop, and that Heien’s subsequent consent to the search was valid. Heien pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the suppression decision. "
The truth of the matters is that BOTH "liberal" and "conservatve" justices are state supremacists scumbags !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
.
Did you bother to read what you JUST quoted? It clearly states the cops got permission from both people.I doubt this counts as an 'abolishment' of the 4th Amendment. Heien's friend agreed for the car to be searched.
HUH? Show me where they consented - why the fuck would they move to suppress if they consented ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
"
Two men were in the car: Maynor Javier Vasquez sat behind the wheel, and petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien lay across the rear seat. Sergeant Darisse explained to Vasquez that as long as his license and registration checked out, he would receive only a warning ticket for the broken brake light. A records check revealed no problems with the documents, and Darisse gave Vasquez the warning ticket. But Darisse had become suspicious during the course of the stop—Vasquez appeared nervous, Heien remained lying down the entire time, and the two gave inconsistent answers about their destination. Darisse asked Vasquez if he would be willing to answer some questions. Vasquez assented, and Darisse asked whether the men were transporting various types of contraband. Told no, Darisse asked whether he could search the Escort. Vasquez said he had no objection, but told Darisse he should ask Heien, because Heien owned the car. Heien gave his consent, and Darisse, aided by a fellow officer who had since arrived, began a thorough search of the vehicle. In the side compartment of a duffle bag, Darisse found a sandwich bag containing cocaine. The officers arrested both men. 366 N. C. 271, 272–273, 737 S. E. 2d 351, 352–353 (2012); App. 5–6, 25, 37.
The State charged Heien with attempted trafficking in cocaine. Heien moved to suppress the evidence seized from the car, contending that the stop and search had violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. After a hearing at which both officers testified and the State played a video recording of the stop, the trial court denied the suppression motion, concluding that the faulty brake light had given Sergeant Darisse reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop, and that Heien’s subsequent consent to the search was valid. Heien pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the suppression decision. "
The truth of the matters is that BOTH "liberal" and "conservatve" justices are state supremacists scumbags !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
.
The issue wasn't a 'good faith' exception. It was that the officer's interpretation of the law was reasonable. Which satisfies the requirements that a search be reasonable.
Exactly.
I still do not know why we invaded Germany and attempted to kill Hitler just because he misunderstood German Law. He --innocently -- believed that being a Jew was a German Crime.
Gassing/incinerating 6,000,000 Jews was reasonable under the circumstances.
Heil Hitler.
.
Both men told the cops they could search the vehicle. It is right in your own link they gave permission you retard.Did you bother to read what you JUST quoted? It clearly states the cops got permission from both people.I doubt this counts as an 'abolishment' of the 4th Amendment. Heien's friend agreed for the car to be searched.
HUH? Show me where they consented - why the fuck would they move to suppress if they consented ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
"
Two men were in the car: Maynor Javier Vasquez sat behind the wheel, and petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien lay across the rear seat. Sergeant Darisse explained to Vasquez that as long as his license and registration checked out, he would receive only a warning ticket for the broken brake light. A records check revealed no problems with the documents, and Darisse gave Vasquez the warning ticket. But Darisse had become suspicious during the course of the stop—Vasquez appeared nervous, Heien remained lying down the entire time, and the two gave inconsistent answers about their destination. Darisse asked Vasquez if he would be willing to answer some questions. Vasquez assented, and Darisse asked whether the men were transporting various types of contraband. Told no, Darisse asked whether he could search the Escort. Vasquez said he had no objection, but told Darisse he should ask Heien, because Heien owned the car. Heien gave his consent, and Darisse, aided by a fellow officer who had since arrived, began a thorough search of the vehicle. In the side compartment of a duffle bag, Darisse found a sandwich bag containing cocaine. The officers arrested both men. 366 N. C. 271, 272–273, 737 S. E. 2d 351, 352–353 (2012); App. 5–6, 25, 37.
The State charged Heien with attempted trafficking in cocaine. Heien moved to suppress the evidence seized from the car, contending that the stop and search had violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. After a hearing at which both officers testified and the State played a video recording of the stop, the trial court denied the suppression motion, concluding that the faulty brake light had given Sergeant Darisse reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop, and that Heien’s subsequent consent to the search was valid. Heien pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the suppression decision. "
The truth of the matters is that BOTH "liberal" and "conservatve" justices are state supremacists scumbags !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
.
Permission?
Let me guess, you live in a foxhole? Nursing Home? Am I close?
.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law
I guess SCOTUS' justices know what Jonathan Gruber Knows
AMERICANS ARE STUPID HENCE THEY DON'T NEED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
.
Have you read the specifics of this case? Both suspects consented to a search of the vehicle.
Listen you stupid fuckThe issue wasn't a 'good faith' exception. It was that the officer's interpretation of the law was reasonable. Which satisfies the requirements that a search be reasonable.
Exactly.
I still do not know why we invaded Germany and attempted to kill Hitler just because he misunderstood German Law. He --innocently -- believed that being a Jew was a German Crime.
Pulling a car over because it had a broken tail light isn't invading Germany or attempting to kill Hitler.
Making your analogy......bizarre and awkward.
Gassing/incinerating 6,000,000 Jews was reasonable under the circumstances.
Heil Hitler.
.
Asking a pair of suspects if their car can be searched isn't killing 6 million jews. Your reply doesn't seem to have a thing to do with what you're responding to.
So now you admit they consented. So much for your earlier claims.Listen you stupid fuckThe issue wasn't a 'good faith' exception. It was that the officer's interpretation of the law was reasonable. Which satisfies the requirements that a search be reasonable.
Exactly.
I still do not know why we invaded Germany and attempted to kill Hitler just because he misunderstood German Law. He --innocently -- believed that being a Jew was a German Crime.
Pulling a car over because it had a broken tail light isn't invading Germany or attempting to kill Hitler.
Making your analogy......bizarre and awkward.
Gassing/incinerating 6,000,000 Jews was reasonable under the circumstances.
Heil Hitler.
.
Asking a pair of suspects if their car can be searched isn't killing 6 million jews. Your reply doesn't seem to have a thing to do with what you're responding to.
From the standpoint that the US is SUPPOSED TO BE A FREE COUNTRY there is no reason whatsoever for the gestapo to interfere with these individuals right to travel.
NONE.
Had those individuals refused to "consent" to a search the gestapo would have located a friendly "magistrate" who would have been more that happy to sign a warrant.
The fact that free people can smoke or snort anything, notwithstanding.
.
Sergeant Darisse asked Vasquez for permission to
search the Escort. Pet. App. 3a. Vasquez said he had
no objection, but that the car belonged to petitioner.
Sergeant Darisse then obtained petitioner’s consent.
For once, the over reactionary Contumacious does raise a valid concern. The principle of a "mistaken belief" in the law can lend itself to abuse of circumventing fourth amendment protections. Nonetheless, he fails to recognize that, as the court pointed out in this decision, the exception is a well established matter of settled jurisprudence. And it is not unqualified. It must be a reasonable mistake. The courts are the determiners of the reasonableness of the mistaken belief.
Once you give permission to search a car you cannot reverse that when the search is over, common sense.I doubt this counts as an 'abolishment' of the 4th Amendment. Heien's friend agreed for the car to be searched. While he had standing as far as the traffic law was concerned; the fact he consented to a search pretty much sunk his case.
May I remind you of some previous SCOTUS rulings affirming the 4th Amendment:
Riley v. California 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
Missouri v. McNeely 569 U.S. ___ (2013)
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Listen you stupid fuck
From the standpoint that the US is SUPPOSED TO BE A FREE COUNTRY there is no reason whatsoever for the gestapo to interfere with these individuals right to travel.
Had those individuals refused to "consent" to a search the gestapo would have located a friendly "magistrate" who would have been more that happy to sign a warrant.
Once you give permission to search a car you cannot reverse that when the search is over, common sense.I doubt this counts as an 'abolishment' of the 4th Amendment. Heien's friend agreed for the car to be searched. While he had standing as far as the traffic law was concerned; the fact he consented to a search pretty much sunk his case.
May I remind you of some previous SCOTUS rulings affirming the 4th Amendment:
Riley v. California 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
Missouri v. McNeely 569 U.S. ___ (2013)
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
For once, the over reactionary Contumacious does raise a valid concern. The principle of a "mistaken belief" in the law can lend itself to abuse of circumventing fourth amendment protections. Nonetheless, he fails to recognize that, as the court pointed out in this decision, the exception is a well established matter of settled jurisprudence. And it is not unqualified. It must be a reasonable mistake. The courts are the determiners of the reasonableness of the mistaken belief.
For once, the over reactionary Contumacious does raise a valid concern. The principle of a "mistaken belief" in the law can lend itself to abuse of circumventing fourth amendment protections. Nonetheless, he fails to recognize that, as the court pointed out in this decision, the exception is a well established matter of settled jurisprudence. And it is not unqualified. It must be a reasonable mistake. The courts are the determiners of the reasonableness of the mistaken belief.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized her colleagues for giving the police far too much leeway. “One is left to wonder,” she wrote, “why an innocent citizen should be made to shoulder the burden of being seized whenever the law may be susceptible to an interpretative question.” In Sotomayor's view, “an officer’s mistake of law, no matter how reasonable, cannot support the individualized suspicion necessary to justify a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.”
For once, the over reactionary Contumacious does raise a valid concern. The principle of a "mistaken belief" in the law can lend itself to abuse of circumventing fourth amendment protections. Nonetheless, he fails to recognize that, as the court pointed out in this decision, the exception is a well established matter of settled jurisprudence. And it is not unqualified. It must be a reasonable mistake. The courts are the determiners of the reasonableness of the mistaken belief.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized her colleagues for giving the police far too much leeway. “One is left to wonder,” she wrote, “why an innocent citizen should be made to shoulder the burden of being seized whenever the law may be susceptible to an interpretative question.” In Sotomayor's view, “an officer’s mistake of law, no matter how reasonable, cannot support the individualized suspicion necessary to justify a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.”
Are you clear on the concept of a majority opinion? Because that's not it.
