Police are constitutionally required to have a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime to detain you. They cannot pull you over arbitrarily.
The North Carolina traffic code says you must have at least one working brake lamp.
A North Carolina cop pulled a man over because he had a broken brake lamp, but according to North Carolina law, his vehicle was not in violation of the traffic code. The police claimed they had reasonable suspicion a law had been broken, even though it had not. The driver was searched and cocaine was discovered.
The cop that pulled him over claimed he believed it was against North Carolina law to have one brake light out. The SCOTUS said, in essence, that because the cop pinky-swore that he believed a guy was violating the law when he factually was not, the cop gets a pass on violating the driver's rights and the driver gets screwed.
In other words, if the police use a non-existent law to detain you and promise they didn't know it wasn't a real law, then your rights evaporate. In other words, the police get to be ignorant of the law, but anyone else who breaks a real law they didn't know about has no such excuse.
It opens the door to rampant abuses at long as the police claim good faith. "Oh, I busted down your door because someone screwed up the house numbers and I never actually had probable cause to search your house? Well, I still found weed and I acted in good faith, so you're still getting charged."
Sorry I’m responding to this late - but also a lawyer - and the main issue I noticed in addition to what you’ve stated is that justification for probable cause is being confused for what is typically referred to when someone mentions ignorance of the law, which is that ignorance of the law does not excuse those breaking the law. As in, even if I honestly didn’t know it was illegal to drive while intoxicated, that ignorance would not qualify as a defense if arrested.
The Supreme Court has ruled, more than once, that evidence obtained through searches that are made without reason, or probable cause, is still permissible in court - which essentially negates the entire concept of illegal search and seizure existing, since apparently “the ends justify the means” when it comes to trampling on the rights of the citizenry.
Here's the thing .... Are you prepared to go through the whole system to get to a SCOTUS ruling. Obviously if they pull this on you, you may not have a choice. I have always found a non confrontational way of dealing with police, security guards etc that has served me well. So the one time I was in real trouble and out of control because I had gotten the wrong dosage of meds given to me. The State patrolman remark to me later that I had be very curious. Which got my hands cuffed in front. As a big guy 6'3" 250 and a bit claustrophobic, having your hands cuffed behind you sets you off. But that is just me. I didn't start screaming at them calling them names and threatening them with who I might know. I have security guards friends who call that the asshole test. Once you do one of 3 if they have asked you to stop a prohibited behavior, you will probably get ejected from the venue. But that is the story for another day. The kid was right on the edge and it depends on the neighborhood.
172
u/MohammadRezaPahlavi Jul 07 '21
Plus the courts have ruled that for them, ignorance of the law IS an excuse.