Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Cops

[Sonny Clark]

Another piece taken away from John Q. Public. The cops don't have to know the law, they just need a badge and a gun.

Supreme Court rules an officer 8217 s misunderstanding of a law is protected Ben Swann Truth In Media
Supreme Court rules an officer’s misunderstanding of a law is protected

 

[JakeStarkey]

An unwitting decision that taints the evidence is forgivable to the cops at the expense of the Constitution? Bad decision.

 

[Mathbud1]

I see what you mean, but the situation isn't as simple as all that.

If you state that officers don't have to be perfect in their knowledge of the law, and that they can be justified in making mistakes you open the door for abuses where cops can say, "I didn't know the law said that" to get away with something.

On the other hand, if you say that officers must strictly follow every law to the letter and if they don't the case will be thrown out, you open the door for criminals to get away with actual crimes on minor technicalities and ambiguous phrasings in the law.

In the end, all the ruling really says is that officers are humans who will make mistakes, and as long as those mistakes are reasonable a search and seizure can still be justified.

Reasonable obviously being open to some interpretation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I see what you mean, but the situation isn't as simple as all that.

If you state that officers don't have to be perfect in their knowledge of the law, and that they can be justified in making mistakes you open the door for abuses where cops can say, "I didn't know the law said that" to get away with something.

On the other hand, if you say that officers must strictly follow every law to the letter and if they don't the case will be thrown out, you open the door for criminals to get away with actual crimes on minor technicalities and ambiguous phrasings in the law.

In the end, all the ruling really says is that officers are humans who will make mistakes, and as long as those mistakes are reasonable a search and seizure can still be justified.

Reasonable obviously being open to some interpretation.

Not according to the " I hate cops" crowd. They would gladly see felons murderers drug dealers and all sort of criminals go free.

 

[Mathbud1]

I see what you mean, but the situation isn't as simple as all that.

If you state that officers don't have to be perfect in their knowledge of the law, and that they can be justified in making mistakes you open the door for abuses where cops can say, "I didn't know the law said that" to get away with something.

On the other hand, if you say that officers must strictly follow every law to the letter and if they don't the case will be thrown out, you open the door for criminals to get away with actual crimes on minor technicalities and ambiguous phrasings in the law.

In the end, all the ruling really says is that officers are humans who will make mistakes, and as long as those mistakes are reasonable a search and seizure can still be justified.

Reasonable obviously being open to some interpretation.

Not according to the " I hate cops" crowd. They would gladly see felons murderers drug dealers and all sort of criminals go free.

Cops are in a tough position. I certainly wouldn't want their job. Who thanks an officer for giving them a speeding ticket? Ya know?

They have a lot of authority and a lot of responsibility. Unfortunately there will always be some who can't handle that, and they give a bad name to all those who can.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I see what you mean, but the situation isn't as simple as all that.

If you state that officers don't have to be perfect in their knowledge of the law, and that they can be justified in making mistakes you open the door for abuses where cops can say, "I didn't know the law said that" to get away with something.

On the other hand, if you say that officers must strictly follow every law to the letter and if they don't the case will be thrown out, you open the door for criminals to get away with actual crimes on minor technicalities and ambiguous phrasings in the law.

In the end, all the ruling really says is that officers are humans who will make mistakes, and as long as those mistakes are reasonable a search and seizure can still be justified.

Reasonable obviously being open to some interpretation.

Not according to the " I hate cops" crowd. They would gladly see felons murderers drug dealers and all sort of criminals go free.

Cops are in a tough position. I certainly wouldn't want their job. Who thanks an officer for giving them a speeding ticket? Ya know?

They have a lot of authority and a lot of responsibility. Unfortunately there will always be some who can't handle that, and they give a bad name to all those who can.

And then we have the people that INSIST a few bad apples equals the whole lot. While at the same time explaining how VERY high crime rates committed by certain groups does not establish a pattern at all.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Good. What do we expect cops to be? Supreme Court justices? Even with every decision the SCOTUS makes, half the country bitches, whines, and disagrees. There are a few municipalities in the US that require bachelors degrees of their cops, municipalities that woke up and ponied up. I know it's an old saw, but it really is true that most of the time in life, we get what we pay for. An education doesn't necessarily guarantee a better cop, but it probably gets us a lot closer to having personnel who approach what they do as a social science, rather than a never-ending state of animosity between them and the "civilians."

 

[Roadrunner]

I see what you mean, but the situation isn't as simple as all that.

If you state that officers don't have to be perfect in their knowledge of the law, and that they can be justified in making mistakes you open the door for abuses where cops can say, "I didn't know the law said that" to get away with something.

On the other hand, if you say that officers must strictly follow every law to the letter and if they don't the case will be thrown out, you open the door for criminals to get away with actual crimes on minor technicalities and ambiguous phrasings in the law.

In the end, all the ruling really says is that officers are humans who will make mistakes, and as long as those mistakes are reasonable a search and seizure can still be justified.

Reasonable obviously being open to some interpretation.

The 4th has been dead so long I don't really see how it changes much.