• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

ThinkProgress: Supreme Court Says Ignorance Of The Law Is An Excuse — If You’re A Cop

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Malyse

Member
There is one simple concept that law students learn in their very first weeks of criminal law class: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This principle means that when an individual violates the law, it doesn’t matter whether or not they knew what the law said. If it’s a crime, and they are found to have committed the elements of that crime, they are guilty.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the same standard doesn’t necessarily apply to police. In a splintered 8-1 ruling, the court found that cops who pulled over Nicholas Heien for a broken taillight were justified in a subsequent search of Heien’s car, even though North Carolina law says that having just one broken taillight is not a violation of the law.

The ruling means that police did not violate Heien’s rights when they later searched his car and found cocaine, and that the cocaine evidence can’t be suppressed at a later trial. But it also means that the U.S. Supreme Court declined the opportunity to draw a line limiting the scope of police stops, at a time when they are as rampant and racially disproportionate as ever. Instead, police may have considerably more leeway to stop passengers on the road, even in a number of jurisdictions that had previously said cops are not justified in mistakes of law.

The case hinged on a question of “reasonableness.” North Carolina’s law requires that a driver have one working rear taillight, not two. But the law also has some other language that suggests “other” lamps be in “working order.” If there was any ambiguity about this statute, the North Carolina Supreme Court has cleared it up, holding that the “other” lamps language does not refer to tail lights.

Nonetheless, because the statute is confusing, the state argued that the cops had made a “reasonable” mistake when they pulled over Heien for having one tail light, and thus were not precluded from using the evidence that came out of that stop. This assertion is controversial in and of itself. After all, police already have such vast leeway to make traffic stops that Fourth Amendment scholar Orin Kerr recently quipped, “if an officer can’t find a traffic violation to stop a car, he isn’t trying very hard.” Now police have to try even less hard.

If it were up to the two concurring justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, the ruling would have stopped here. It would have held that the stop of Heien was “reasonable” even though the officers made a mistake, because the law itself was particularly unclear.

The vague language of the majority holding, however, seemingly went much further. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that “investigatory stops” — when police stop someone on the street or in a car and may subsequently question, frisk, or search them — are simply not held to the same standard as criminal convictions.

He dismissed the refrain “ignorance of the law is no excuse” as a maxim with “rhetorical appeal,” but not worthy of the court’s serious consideration, at least not when it comes to investigatory stops. “[J]ust because mistakes of law cannot justify either the imposition or the avoidance of criminal liability, it does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop,” he writes.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is a former prosecutor, has significant concerns with the scope of this holding.

“One wonders how a citizen seeking to be law-abiding and to structure his or her behavior to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters could do so,” she wrote. She also noted the “human consequences,” “including those for communities and for their relationships with the police” of broader leeway for police stops, seemingly making reference to current outrage over police brutality and community mistrust.
She doesn’t think it makes any sense to apply a lesser standard to stops than to convictions. And she doesn’t like the vague, permissive standard that will likely result in “murky” application of the law.

Perhaps most importantly, Sotomayor points out that the cost of prohibiting stops when officers actually make a mistake of the law would be very small, compared to a potentially great consequences of allowing them to do so. After all, when cops mistakenly pull someone over in a circumstance like that in this case, they suffer no consequence. The only result is that the evidence they collect cannot be used in a later prosecution. When cops mistakenly pull over citizens, a subsequent drug prosecution is one of just a number of adverse consequences that can follow.
Click to expand...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...takes-about-the-law-wont-stop-your-drug-bust/
 
So....cops needn't know the law, but the citizens should


How could this be viewed as anything but utter bullshit.

Also how does a tail light out give reasonable suspicion to search a car.
 
WarMacheen said:
So....cops needn't know the law, but the citizens should


How could this be viewed as anything but utter bullshit.

Also how does a tail light out give reasonable suspicion to search a car.
Click to expand...

In case you've been missing Serial, the american justice system is completely busted right now.
 
Did the guy consent to have his car searched? If so, why? I never understand why people consent, not without a warrant, officer.


Also this is ridiculous, great job supreme court.
 
For those who don't want to read the whole thing:

- North Carolina case where an officer pulled over someone for having a busted tail light, and then found drugs
- Case is challenged because in North Carolina, the wording on pulling someone over for a tail light is vague, as it says "other lights must be in working order," and so the defendant challenges that there was not a right to pull them over, so evidence of another crime is inadmissable in court.
- Supreme Court rules that a 'reasonable' search and seizure can still take place when a law is worded vaguely

davepoobond said:
No more search and seizure protection, so that means a whole amendment just got thrown out
Click to expand...

Eh, have a right to be pissed, but that's not true. The defendant consented to the search.

DreamDrop said:
In case you've been missing Serial, the american justice system is completely busted right now.
Click to expand...

I don't think that Serial really damns the American justice system. It damn's the defendant's lawyer, especially the last episode, and she's one of the most expensive, sought after private defenders available at the time.
 
I think a key detail would be whether the defendant consented to a search of his vehicle, which I didn't see in the article.

If he consented then this doesn't mean that much, but if he did then it's a doozey.
 
I don't like it but it sorta seems like an extension of recent social trends. Ill obtained information is still admissible information by which to damn someone.
 
After reading more details, the Court argues that the state can't impose a punishment for something that is not illegal. E.g., in this case, the original defendant was driving with a busted tail light, which is not illegal in North Carolina, but he was mistakenly pulled over for it. After consenting to a search, police found a bag of cocaine in his car, which he was charged for. The defendant argued that he cannot be charged for a drug offense because the initial pretense for the investigation was by mistake; the court argues that, no, he can be charged with a drug offense because he consented to the search, but he cannot be charged for something that is not illegal, e.g., driving with a busted tail light when that is not illegal in that state. But -- he wasn't charged (or penalized) for that.

Roberts said the officer's decision to stop the car in the first place was reasonable given the confusing way in which the law was worded. Under North Carolina's decades-old law, all cars made after 1955 are required to have a "stop lamp" that can be part of "one or more other rear lamps." But no court had ever interpreted the law in the modern era to require only one working brake light.

Both the state and the Obama administration had argued that refusing to allow such stops would inject too much uncertainty into the daily actions of police in the field who need to make quick decisions. Reasonable mistakes of law are acceptable, they argued, especially when dealing with a complex law that might be subject to different interpretations.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the court's (or the Obama Administration's) decision here in that this constitutes a reasonable search and seizure. But, obviously, with the hostility between civilians and police in recent years and months, I understand why people would be upset.
 
the stop was illegal, the cocaine evidence that resulted should be thrown out, and this cop empowering ruling should have never happened.
 
captive said:
Did the guy consent to have his car searched? If so, why? I never understand why people consent, not without a warrant, officer.


Also this is ridiculous, great job supreme court.
Click to expand...

Probable cause.

Like the Cleveland PD said in the other thread on the Browns, "Do what we say, if we're right, you go to jail. If we're wrong, that's for the courts to decide.* If you don't do what we say, well, that's on your head."

*disclaimer - courts say that cops are never wrong.

It's an inescapable web of bullshit. We've given them too much power and now it's almost impossible to peel it back.
 
The Albatross said:
For those who don't want to read the whole thing:

- North Carolina case where an officer pulled over someone for having a busted tail light, and then found drugs
- Case is challenged because in North Carolina, the wording on pulling someone over for a tail light is vague, as it says "other lights must be in working order," and so the defendant challenges that there was not a right to pull them over, so evidence of another crime is inadmissable in court.
- Supreme Court rules that a 'reasonable' search and seizure can still take place when a law is worded vaguely



Eh, have a right to be pissed, but that's not true. The defendant consented to the search.



I don't think that Serial really damns the American justice system. It damn's the defendant's lawyer, especially the last episode, and she's one of the most expensive, sought after private defenders available at the time.
Click to expand...
Can you say from the evidence presented by the state that Adnan did it beyond reasonable doubt?
 
The Albatross said:
After reading more details, the Court argues that the state can't impose a punishment for something that is not illegal. E.g., in this case, the original defendant was driving with a busted tail light, which is not illegal in North Carolina, but he was mistakenly pulled over for it. After consenting to a search, police found a bag of cocaine in his car, which he was charged for. The defendant argued that he cannot be charged for a drug offense because the initial pretense for the investigation was by mistake; the court argues that, no, he can be charged with a drug offense because he consented to the search, but he cannot be charged for something that is not illegal, e.g., driving with a busted tail light when that is not illegal in that state. But -- he wasn't charged (or penalized) for that.

I don't disagree with the court's (or the Obama Administration's) decision here in that this constitutes a reasonable search and seizure. But, obviously, with the hostility between civilians and police in recent years and months, I understand why people would be upset.
Click to expand...
Im with you in principal, but I find the ambiguity of the law questionable in this situation. From what I gather the law basically says "Only one tail light needs to be working, but other lamps need to be in working order." Its obviously, objectively false to take that to mean that having one working tail light is a violation. Furthermore, I dont think it is reasonable to think that an officer in NC is not familiar with the laws on tail lights in NC.

Its true that this guy severely hurt his defense by consenting to the search, but giving the cop a pass here means saying that cops can pull people over for something they know isnt illegal, fish for consents to searches, and then prop up a very weak argument about vaguely worded law if they get called on it.
 
"[J]ust because mistakes of law cannot justify either the imposition or the avoidance of criminal liability, it does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop"
Click to expand...

But by justifying the investigatory stop it can lead to justifying the imposition of criminal liability. Am I misreading that statement?
 
Random Painted HIghway said:
Here is the opinion, it is a good idea to read this before commenting based solely on think progress' take. For example, the ignorance of the law bit is explicitly addressed in the opinion.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf
Click to expand...

Finally, while the maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” correctly implies that the State cannot impose punishment based on a mistake of law, it does not mean a reasonable mistake of law cannot justify an investigatory stop. Pp. 4–12.
Click to expand...

I'll just agree to disagree.
 
AndyD said:
But by justifying the investigatory stop it can lead to justifying the imposition of criminal liability. Am I misreading that statement?
Click to expand...

You are reading it correctly.

The courts will now have to entertain a meta argument about what the cop knows or doesn't know about the law in question that they used to stop the person to investigate which then lead to the evidence used in prosecution.

The old rule was so much more clear. Either the stop was justified by law or it wasn't.

Edit:

I can see the episode from next season of L&O now:

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, as you witnessed from our from our expert testimony, the officer is a certified moron. There is no way he could have known that the stop was unlawful. The prosecution rests."
 
DreamDrop said:
Can you say from the evidence presented by the state that Adnan did it beyond reasonable doubt?
Click to expand...

I, personally, I have many doubts, but let's remember here, Serial is a podcast on the pretense of defending Adnan... We're being presented his side of the story in defense of him, with him as his primary witness. So far, the convicting evidence -- the cell phone records and Jays testimony -- haven't been contradicted by the program.

Further, I think that they've setup the show as a defense of Adnan to make it more entertaining... That they're holding out for a payoff (and if they don't, well, I think a lot of people will be disappointed... and the last couple episodes seem that the show will just fizzle out). For what it's worth though, I'm not one of the thousands of amateur sleuths who've taken to the internet trying to solve this case, I'm just listening to the episodes and taking them as the entertainment program that they are.

LaserBuddha said:
Im with you in principal, but I find the ambiguity of the law questionable in this situation. From what I gather the law basically says "Only one tail light needs to be working, but other lamps need to be in working order." Its obviously, objectively false to take that to mean that having one working tail light is a violation. Furthermore, I dont think it is reasonable to think that an officer in NC is not familiar with the laws on tail lights in NC.

Its true that this guy severely hurt his defense by consenting to the search, but giving the cop a pass here means saying that cops can pull people over for something they know isnt illegal, fish for consents to searches, and then prop up a very weak argument about vaguely worded law if they get called on it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree, but I think that's where a lower court would find it an unreasonable search and seizure if police were drumming up things that they knew weren't illegal. Having only read through the details of this case over the last ~20 minutes or so, it sounds as though there is real ambiguity with the law in North Carolina and that the courts and police weren't clear on it. I think if the defendant were being charged with a crime for breaking an ambiguous law it would be one thing, but because -- as Roberts says -- he's being charged with a crime on which there's no ambiguity, I understand the Court's ruling and the Obama administration's defense of the NC police.

Frankly, I'm less ... jaded ... I guess that if police were making up or intentionally misconstruing laws as a pretense to pull people over for them, only to fish for consent and then find cocaine, that those would stand up as "reasonable" searches. I don't think they'd pass a smell test in the courts. This one though, I can understand the ruling.
 
Escape Goat said:
Cops need robot partners.
Click to expand...
o-almost-human-facebook.jpg


Thanks, Supreme Court Jesters..ya fucks.
 
captmcblack said:
Wait...so the people tasked with enforcing the law - don't actually have to know the law they're tasked with enforcing?
Click to expand...

Hell, according to this ruling it could serve them to be willfully ignorant of the law for plausible deniability.
 
Malreyn said:
Doesn't that mean that the police can arrest you without reading you your Miranda rights?
Click to expand...

Miranda warnings only need to be given prior to interrogation in order to make sure any statements by the suspect are admissible in court. TV's version doesn't reflect reality.
 
Well, it feels like in every video recorded confrontation of and officer and citizen, the citizen DOES know more about the law and rights than the cop, and the citizen gets punished for it.

Seriously, is there any way to piss off a cop faster than citing the law?
 
The Albatross said:
After reading more details, the Court argues that the state can't impose a punishment for something that is not illegal. E.g., in this case, the original defendant was driving with a busted tail light, which is not illegal in North Carolina, but he was mistakenly pulled over for it. After consenting to a search, police found a bag of cocaine in his car, which he was charged for. The defendant argued that he cannot be charged for a drug offense because the initial pretense for the investigation was by mistake; the court argues that, no, he can be charged with a drug offense because he consented to the search, but he cannot be charged for something that is not illegal, e.g., driving with a busted tail light when that is not illegal in that state. But -- he wasn't charged (or penalized) for that.



I don't disagree with the court's (or the Obama Administration's) decision here in that this constitutes a reasonable search and seizure. But, obviously, with the hostility between civilians and police in recent years and months, I understand why people would be upset.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I was initially incensed but if your summary is accurate, I'm not really upset. He consented to a search, that's that. I'd be in favour of making it illegal for cops to badger and pressure people for consent.
 
This ruling seems like it would open the door for all sorts of shit, even though it didn't in this particular case (since he consented).
 
old said:
Hell, according to this ruling it could serve them to be willfully ignorant of the law for plausible deniability.
Click to expand...

Except this ruling focuses on a law that both the state and the SC describe as vague and unclear. I don't think it's giving carte blanche for "I'm sorry judge, I ... didn't know I couldn't do that" as a way for officers to pull you over.

There's also the "don't consent to police searches without a warrant" bit that this guy did, knowing he had a bag of cocaine in the car.
 
captive said:
Did the guy consent to have his car searched? If so, why? I never understand why people consent, not without a warrant, officer.


Also this is ridiculous, great job supreme court.
Click to expand...

Cops don't tell you that you don't have to consent, they lie to you and pressure you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Wizard of the Kremlin | Official Trailer | Jude Law is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin
5
268
Atrus replied
Focker-In-Law Trailer
16
509
Dirk Benedict replied
  • Locked
UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex
2
62
4K
jason10mm replied
If the OOT of Star Wars were re-released as the offical version what scene(s) do you think would be important to keep?
45
660
BlackTron replied
Burger King will use AI to check if employees say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’
2
92
2K
Svalr93 replied
Top Bottom