Search:

Nope. Not perfect. Not in cases where the law is ambiguous. We get the benefit of the doubt when the law says "one tail light must work" and "all tail lights must work." A reasonable person could...

And let me see if I can be more explicit. These are all legitimate and interesting questions, by the way, so I hope no one gets the impression that I'm being argumentative! I have a relatively...

OK. So a civilian rolling with a single broken tail light gets a pass because the law was ambiguous. But the cop making a RAS stop must somehow divine the "true meaning" of that law, or his RAS...

Well, the "objectively reasonable" standard is pretty ubiquitous in our laws. Before we object to its use here, we need to carefully assess what such an objection would imply. What other laws and...

That's not my reading. Thanks to KeeFus' research and posts, we know that the mistake about the law has to be objectively reasonable. Civilians get that kind of pass all the time, meaning that we...

I get your concern, but it just doesn't seem justified. I don't see the message that you say is cast. KeeFus' last posts explain why I don't see it, better than I could.

And big ups to KeeFus...

Well, if the standard is RAS, I think it's certainly reasonable and articulable if the cop says "broken tail light." Incorrect, because mistake-of-law, but not unreasonable...?

Wait. This question implies that the opinion protects cops from breaking the law. Does an officer break the law when he pulls someone over inappropriately? Or is it more of an administrative error...

It was an attempt at my own hyperbole, intended to build rapport with you, in hopes that you'd take my message in the spirit with which it was intended. I obviously failed, and I apologize for...

You forgot "and spend a career risking their lives to keep us safe."

I understand the use and value of hyperbole, I really do. But let's avoid inflammatory comments that oversimplify the debate...