Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There's a case before the SCOTUS right now that was argued back in October that has to do with something similar, where "forgotten law" (the police officer allegedly forgot what the law was for a broken tail light and pulled the person over anyway) led to a traffic stop, which led to a cursory search of the vehicle, which led to the discovery of a substantial amount of cocaine (relatively speaking). While one might argue that the court could easily rule for the government in this case given that the defendant consented to the secondary search (perhaps out of ignorance of the law), what's troubling for me in this related case is the government's position outright: namely, that it doesn't matter if the police officer does or does not know the law as long as a stop is "reasonable." To me that sounds like a pretty awful precedent to set. My law professor loved to ask us, somewhat condescendingly and to paraphrase John Adams, "are we a Nation of men, or are we a Nation of laws?"

Indeed.

[1]http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_604



From the police actions and ruling in this case, I'd say the answer is neither.


Thankfully the Court hasn't ruled on it yet. Probably looking for a June opinion release. Given the precedent set in Riley v. California [1] (cellphone warrant case) I think the personality of the court is inclined to agree that police do in fact need a legal justification to pull someone over. I was more concerned that the Federal Government was arguing to the contrary.

[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: