SCOTUS: Cops can make up reason to stop you.

The guy is an idiot and consented to a search of the vehicle with a sandwich bag full of coke in the car. He could of told the officer no I don't consent to a search of my vehicle you have no cause to search it and I am going to call my lawyer.

If he had refused consent to search, he may very well have been searched anyway by either some trumped up PC or the dogs (or both). I have to assume the same SCOTUS decision would have been made in that case as well.

Brockback Mountain - "Heien, who consented to the search of the car after he was stopped"

"Heien, who consented to the search of the car after he was stopped"

"Heien, who consented to the search of the car after he was stopped"

"Heien, who consented to the search of the car after he was stopped"

"Heien, who consented to the search of the car after he was stopped"

"Heien, who consented to the search of the car after he was stopped"
Exactly!

Everything else aside, he consented to the search, and then complains because they found what HE GAVE THEM PERMISSION to look for!!

There was NOT an illegal search or seizure..

He is just simply an idiot! Phone Post 3.0

novaguy - Let's say that a policeman pulls you over because you have tinted windows on your car, thinking that the law says that tint adjacent to the driver is illegal, when the law actually state " nothing darker than 50% adjacent to the driver"..

Judging by the responses here, it appears that people think if he were to find a dead body in the back seat, then he should let you go, because you were obeying the law when you got stopped....

YOU STILL HAVE A FUCKING DEAD BODY IN THE GOD DAMN CAR!!!! WHO GIVES A FUCK IF YOU WERE A MODEL DRIVER WHILE YOU WERE TOTING IT AROUND?!?!!!

HELLO!!!!????? Phone Post 3.0
Does it hurt being that stupid? Phone Post 3.0

Your cops are pretty much full military.  You are not on the same team.

 

The west is done.  It was a good run I guess.

 

Peace.

novaguy - Let's say that a policeman pulls you over because you have tinted windows on your car, thinking that the law says that tint adjacent to the driver is illegal, when the law actually state " nothing darker than 50% adjacent to the driver"..

Judging by the responses here, it appears that people think if he were to find a dead body in the back seat, then he should let you go, because you were obeying the law when you got stopped....

YOU STILL HAVE A FUCKING DEAD BODY IN THE GOD DAMN CAR!!!! WHO GIVES A FUCK IF YOU WERE A MODEL DRIVER WHILE YOU WERE TOTING IT AROUND?!?!!!

HELLO!!!!????? Phone Post 3.0
Thank god someone here gets it. Phone Post 3.0

Do you have dead bodies in your car dude?

The Green Bastard -
novaguy - Let's say that a policeman pulls you over because you have tinted windows on your car, thinking that the law says that tint adjacent to the driver is illegal, when the law actually state " nothing darker than 50% adjacent to the driver"..

Judging by the responses here, it appears that people think if he were to find a dead body in the back seat, then he should let you go, because you were obeying the law when you got stopped....

YOU STILL HAVE A FUCKING DEAD BODY IN THE GOD DAMN CAR!!!! WHO GIVES A FUCK IF YOU WERE A MODEL DRIVER WHILE YOU WERE TOTING IT AROUND?!?!!!

HELLO!!!!????? Phone Post 3.0
Does it hurt being that stupid? Phone Post 3.0
I Dont know. I guess you would have to tell me! Phone Post 3.0

He was an absolute moron for consenting. If he did not consent the cops most likely would have let him go with a ticket, and if they searched his car anyway what they found would have been inadmissible in court. In which case there would have been no need for this SC decision, a decision which further muddies the already brackish waters of freedom in this country when it comes to dealing with police.

God what a fucking idiot!!! Fuck this guy Phone Post 3.0

So the cops are really your saviours because they actively search for a dead body in every car they accidentally pull over for the wrong reasons.

 

Well that sounds just peachy.  Thanks officer!

Poleeko - 
GenErick - note to self Make sure my tail lights work before transporting large amounts of drugs.
Aren't you black? If so, you're screwed either way. Phone Post 3.0

???

Your whole life, you are told that the police are your friends and protectors.

 

When they tell the average citizen to do something, the average citizen does it, because their whole life, that is what they are told to do.

 

Everyone learns from a very early age that you have to do what the good officer tells you, even though that's not the truth.

 

Can't blame the dude for complying.  That's what he's been taught to do his whole entire life up to that point.

chrisbaker -
novaguy - Let's say that a policeman pulls you over because you have tinted windows on your car, thinking that the law says that tint adjacent to the driver is illegal, when the law actually state " nothing darker than 50% adjacent to the driver"..

Judging by the responses here, it appears that people think if he were to find a dead body in the back seat, then he should let you go, because you were obeying the law when you got stopped....

YOU STILL HAVE A FUCKING DEAD BODY IN THE GOD DAMN CAR!!!! WHO GIVES A FUCK IF YOU WERE A MODEL DRIVER WHILE YOU WERE TOTING IT AROUND?!?!!!

HELLO!!!!????? Phone Post 3.0
terrible analogy Phone Post 3.0
Either scenario..

A cop performs what he mistakenly thinks is a misdemeanor traffic stop, and discovers a felony in progress..

Perhaps you can explain exactly how you think this analogy doesn't work? Phone Post 3.0

6ULDV8 -


Do you have dead bodies in your car dude?

I might... Phone Post 3.0

Sure seems like the most likely response to this decision is that police agencies intentionally withhold the finer points of law from their own officers.

BarkLikeADog - Sure seems like the most likely response to this decision is that police agencies intentionally withhold the finer points of law from their own officers.
Right? Lol things just continue to unravel. Phone Post 3.0

angryinch -
novaguy - Let's say that a policeman pulls you over because you have tinted windows on your car, thinking that the law says that tint adjacent to the driver is illegal, when the law actually state " nothing darker than 50% adjacent to the driver"..

Judging by the responses here, it appears that people think if he were to find a dead body in the back seat, then he should let you go, because you were obeying the law when you got stopped....

YOU STILL HAVE A FUCKING DEAD BODY IN THE GOD DAMN CAR!!!! WHO GIVES A FUCK IF YOU WERE A MODEL DRIVER WHILE YOU WERE TOTING IT AROUND?!?!!!

HELLO!!!!????? Phone Post 3.0


This is more akin to an invalid search warrant that turns up something illegal.  In most cases where that happens, the evidence is thrown out because the warrant was invalid.  In this case the probable cause for the stop was invalid.  No different than an invalid search warrant.



The current scotus panel is quite possibly the most retarded panel I've ever seen.  

This is not a bright-line rule. There are several exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including good faith and inevitable discovery. An 8-1 vote by SCOTUS is pretty telling that this is consistent with prior rulings. Seems like the driver shot himself in the foot by consenting. Phone Post 3.0

Beninger - I'm pretty sure that ignorance of the law is no defense. At least that argument doesn't save my ass when I break it. Apparently they can just say they "thought" that was indeed a law, and then do whatever they want.
Great point we can't use that excuse Phone Post 3.0

It's correct to say that this is not a bright-line rule, but it's incorrect to say that it's consistent with prior rulings. The majority doesn't even claim to be applying a pre-existing rule.

They could have applied the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, but they specifically declined to do so and made up a new rule instead. Specifically, they extended the mistake of fact rule to mistakes of law (even though mistake of law is not an excuse for non-LEO).

The good faith exception applies to illegal searches; the fruits of the illegal search are admissible because the officer acted in good faith. Under the new rule created in this case, the search isn't even considered illegal if the mistake of law is deemed "reasonable."

Under the facts of the case, SCOTUS held that it was reasonable under the 4th Amendment for the officer to stop the defendant for committing a traffic offense that DOES NOT EXIST.

Brockback Mountain - "Heien, who consented to the search of the car after he was stopped"

"Heien, who consented to the search of the car after he was stopped"

"Heien, who consented to the search of the car after he was stopped"

"Heien, who consented to the search of the car after he was stopped"

"Heien, who consented to the search of the car after he was stopped"

"Heien, who consented to the search of the car after he was stopped"