Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hurrrrrmione t1_j9mpp4q wrote

Reply to comment by Chippopotanuse in Supreme Court rejects man’s bid to sue police over arrest for Facebook parody by sue_me_please

> I’m pretty sure the SCOTUS has held that it does not violate the 4th amendment to be arrested even when an officer doesn’t know the law and is literally making up an arrest-able offense on the spot. > > As long as they have a good faith belief you are breaking the law (even if what they allege you are doing doesn’t violate a law)…they can arrest you.

Heien v North Carolina. A car was pulled over for having one brake light out, which lead to the officer searching the car and finding cocaine. Driving with one brake light was not illegal under North Carolina law (although iirc the law's wording was a bit unclear). SCotUS ruled that (Wikipedia's phrasing) "a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment".

93

Suspicious_Bicycle t1_j9mxo0l wrote

It's rulings like this that incentivize the police to NOT learn the law. Police: "I thought it was illegal and was never trained otherwise." SCOTUS: "All righty then, it's a good bust."

119

jabba-du-hutt t1_j9nmcm6 wrote

And this is what kills me when it comes to educating my kids about how police are aloud to behave in the US. "Law enforcement" means you are enforcing the law. You can't enforce the law if you don't know what it is.

"Oh. I thought the speed limit for that section of road was 25mph. I thought it was a bit odd everyone was going 20 over, but... Oh well! Lucky me!"

"I thought it was illegal for a black man to walk around town in a red hoody. So, arrested him for possession of meth, even though he had nothing on him. Oh. He's also dead because I accidently shot him four times in the back with what I thought was my taser while he was handcuffed and in my car."

SCOTUS: Yup. Seems legit.

54

Squire_II t1_j9ow8bj wrote

> It's rulings like this that incentivize the police to NOT learn the law.

That's intended. The entire idea of qualified immunity is a judicially-created concept. It has no basis in law itself since Congress once considered it and then explicitly decided not to implement the idea.

However, since the judiciary in the US has never had its continued self-granted expanse of power checked by other branches, these kinds of abuses continue and will continue.

22

Socialistpiggy t1_j9mylvf wrote

That specific case was even a bit more nuanced than that. People like to dumb it down and say, "Cops don't even have to know the law!" It wasn't quite that simple.

The law in North Carolina had even been enforced by judges and prosecutors up until that point. If I recall, for many years. Then, an attorney looked closely at the law and realized, due to unclear wording, it's not explicitly clear that it's illegal to drive with only one tail light. They argued, and won.

People don't realize how specific laws have to be, and how often they can be on the books for YEARS before someone makes an argument that something is in fact, not illegal. In my state years ago a criminal case came up where one of the reasons for the initial stop was driving down the shoulder of the road. I think everyone agrees, it's illegal to drive down the shoulder. Well.....it kinda wasn't. The law that referenced improper usage of lanes referenced another section of the code, but that section didn't mention the shoulder, but kind of did lay out the areas of the roadway are between the fog line and center divider. So it was vague, and it didn't EXPLICITLY say you couldn't operate on the shoulder.

I always wondered how many citations got issued, over many many years, before an attorney finally realized the discrepancy and successfully argued it?

28

MiaowaraShiro t1_j9oxwqq wrote

I mean sure, but that doesn't really change the underlying facts.

They were operating on false information, but the fact that operating without a taillight is legal was confirmed so why would any evidence found during a follow up search not be fruit of a poisonous tree?

It shouldn't matter what the officer thinks, it should matter what the law is. If you prove that the probable cause is bunk, then the search wasn't legal despite being done with "best intentions".

12