SCOTUS ruling on "reasonable" mistake of law stop.

[KG1]

Just ran across this SCOTUS ruling handed down on Mon. which in essence states that a stop based on an officers "reasonable" belief that a law was broken even if that law is non-existent followed by a search and or seizure does not violate the 4th Amend.

Supreme Court Sides With Police In 4th Amendment Case Arising from Officer?s ?Mistake of Law? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Sorry if it's a dupe. Didn't see it anywhere.

 

[88GT]

Walking back the protections of the 4th one specific incident at a time.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Since Indiana already has an operative State Court of Appeals decision in Gunn v State, how does this SCOTUS decision affect us? Does it actually overrule Gunn? Or does Gunn still provide an increased level of protection of Hoosiers from capricious LEO actions that North Carolinians, and most of the rest of the United States no longer enjoy? Do we need new law added to the Reasonable Force statute vis-a-vis public servants placing the onus on the PS to maintain themselves within the bounds of the law? Seems rather tautologic to me.

 

[88GT]

I've seen the evidence of "reasonable" in LE. This decision scares the hell out of me.

 

[Denny347]

Since Indiana already has an operative State Court of Appeals decision in Gunn v State, how does this SCOTUS decision affect us? Does it actually overrule Gunn? Or does Gunn still provide an increased level of protection of Hoosiers from capricious LEO actions that North Carolinians, and most of the rest of the United States no longer enjoy? Do we need new law added to the Reasonable Force statute vis-a-vis public servants placing the onus on the PS to maintain themselves within the bounds of the law? Seems rather tautologic to me.

Sadly...I don't know. I know the state supreme courts can rule more narrowly than the USSC and not more broadly. Not sure what is more narrow than this ruling. I have to abide by it and I have no idea how...other than be sure my stops are legal to the best of my ability.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Sadly...I don't know.

Neither do I, and I do not like this feeling.

 

[Rookie]

Complete and utter horse ****, but hey, the courts ruled so it has to be right.

 

[rambone]

The Drug War leads to yet another blow to the Bill of Rights. A free society cannot coexist with this legion of government agents, obsessing daily over searching citizens for contraband.

 

[Rocketscientist]

So lemme get this straight...

I get stopped. Officer says his reason for stopping me is that I have red tail lights. Proceeds to ransack me, my car, shoots my dog.. basically a roadside raping. Turns out red tail lights he thought were illegal, really arent. He sends me on my way without so much as an apology.

Totally ok now?

 

[rambone]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Yeah, right. Rank hypocrisy is the legal standard.

If people are expected to obey a bazillion laws then the government should be held to standard of knowing them.

 

[rambone]

So lemme get this straight...

I get stopped. Officer says his reason for stopping me is that I have red tail lights. Proceeds to ransack me, my car, shoots my dog.. basically a roadside raping. Turns out red tail lights he thought were illegal, really arent. He sends me on my way without so much as an apology.

Totally ok now?

No. Searches that spawn from illegitimate traffic stops are now OK in court.

 

[Rocketscientist]

Yeah, like I said using my dumb story above.

This is going to get twisted and abused as soon as all the creative writers out there get a hold of it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

No. Searches that spawn from illegitimate traffic stops are now OK in court.

In North Carolina maybe (depends on the state provision). Here, no.

"Good faith" exceptions for the government are always dangerous.

 

[jsharmon7]

I don't agree with this. For the search to be legal, the stop should have to be legal. There are all kinds of traffic laws most motorists don't know about, but they can still be stopped and ticketed for violating them. What's good for the goose and all...

 

[chipbennett]

RIP, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine.

 

[MisterChester]

It was an almost unanimous decision. Only Sotomayor (sp?) was against.

 

[JeffINGunner]

Just another ruling by the worthless supreme court jesters... These idiots wouldnt know the fourth Amendment if it were tattooed on their freaking faces... Just another loss for the Constitutional Republic that is rapidly deteriorating.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It was an almost unanimous decision. Only Sotomayor (sp?) was against.

That is odd.

 

[Bunnykid68]

That is odd.

Not really, the more liberal judges are the ones that usually protect the 4th, its the repub judges this usually on it

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not really, the more liberal judges are the ones that usually protect the 4th, its the repub judges this usually on it

Yeah but Sotomayor is not the only "liberal" justice on the court.