Vogel
19th January 2015, 05:49
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BnSaaZPaAI#t=92
“Well, you heard it here first: Ignorance of the law is an excuse, so long as you’re the police. Or so the U.S. Supreme Court has said in a 8-1 decision that symbolically strengthened the hand of the police to make stops even on the basis of nonexistent laws.
The court split hairs, explaining Monday that police ignorance is excusable only when the crime for which the defendant was convicted is different from the nonexistent crime for which he was stopped and searched. If that sounds iffy, it is. Here’s why.
The case, Heien v. North Carolina, had its origins in a weird fact pattern. In brief, the police stopped the defendant’s car because it had a rear brake light out. A subsequent search revealed drugs in the car. But a North Carolina court later determined that state law doesn’t prohibit driving with a failed brake light, so long as at least one is working."* The Young Turks hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break it down.
“Well, you heard it here first: Ignorance of the law is an excuse, so long as you’re the police. Or so the U.S. Supreme Court has said in a 8-1 decision that symbolically strengthened the hand of the police to make stops even on the basis of nonexistent laws.
The court split hairs, explaining Monday that police ignorance is excusable only when the crime for which the defendant was convicted is different from the nonexistent crime for which he was stopped and searched. If that sounds iffy, it is. Here’s why.
The case, Heien v. North Carolina, had its origins in a weird fact pattern. In brief, the police stopped the defendant’s car because it had a rear brake light out. A subsequent search revealed drugs in the car. But a North Carolina court later determined that state law doesn’t prohibit driving with a failed brake light, so long as at least one is working."* The Young Turks hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break it down.