It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court rules Ignorance of the Law IS an excuse for Officers

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
There is a double standard in many cases..the elephant in the room here is that consent was given to search and I don't know how you get around that.




posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
The NPR story is a great example of how the scripted MSM get people all freaked out.

Now why would they do that?




posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Since Heien consented to a search of the car, the whole thing is just an exercise to find out the limit's I'd think.

That and the idea ignorance of the law is no excuse applies only to law enforcement is wrong it seems.


Before closing, let’s put one trending, but erroneous, sound bite to rest. Heien argued that because the common-law maxim “ignorance of the law is no excuse” applies to private citizens who break the law, it should also be applied to police here. Tweeters are now claiming that today’s ruling means the maxim applies to everyone except the police. That not only ignores the very different contexts (criminal law breaking versus justifications for stopping suspected law-breakers), but it’s wrong also in its premise. In fact, the Court long ago ruled that a reasonable “ignorance of the law” can be a defense to prosecution. In Lambert v. California (1957), the Court vacated a criminal conviction because the law at issue could not be reasonably known to the citizenry. This ruling still finds application today, albeit rarely. It seems that the Court may have (even if not consciously) reinvigorated the Lambert concept today at page 12, where it indicated that “the government cannot impose criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law.” If read broadly, this statement could represent a sea change in the modern understanding of Lambert – a decision that Justice Frankfurter called, in dissent, “a derelict on the waters of the law.” But it seems clear that the Court today meant “on [its own] misunderstanding of the law,” not a private citizen’s.

Link

So citizens can use ignorance of the law as a defense.

No Cocaine Cowboy's getting off on a technicality today



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac




So now an officer can just "misunderstand" a law and it's okay for them to break it. Nice.


So they could have gotten off the ticket for the light. But once the officer is in contact with them if he has probable cause to suspect there might be drugs in the car that is a whole another issue unrelated to the light.



new topics

top topics
 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join