This is what it comes down to for me, as well.Originally Posted by TAZ
This is what it comes down to for me, as well.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
I'd agree as well.
This is a concerning precedent in my opinion.
When I was sixteen, I got my first speeding ticket. At the time, the judge in my town made first-time teenage speeders write out "ignorance of the law is no excuse" for ten pages, front and back. I don't recall any caveats to that. It would appear that the judge forgot the "unless you take a few months of classes at an academy and swear an oath" exception to that statement.
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 so much that they become irrelevant as well as insulting. This is an official request to stay civil.
The answer, it seems to me, is wrath. The mind cannot foresee its own advance. --FA Hayek Specialization is for insects.
If I am to avoid hyperbolic and inflammatory comments, why go straight for the tug-at-the-heartstrings line? Your bolded comment could be taken several ways, not all of which are relevant or non-insulting.
Regarding "oversimplification," the debate -- or at least, what's left of it -- is already fairly simple. LEOs just got an exception to a very longstanding bright-line rule. While Mr. Hearne has a point that the purpose of the Exclusionary Rule has always been to deter bad faith conduct, the point of good for the goose, good for the gander is equally applicable here. Chief Justice Roberts' assurances aside, the thought of an entire class of people getting an exception to a standard to which I (and, up until recently, everybody else) am held simply because they were "objectively reasonable" in their mistake rubs me wrong, regardless of the risks that class assumes when they enter the profession.
Further, LEOs go through several months of instruction before getting their badge, part of which includes sections which leave them with a bit more than a passing familiarity of what is legal and what is not. If anything, they ought to be held to a higher standard of knowledge in that department.
Heien gave consent to the search.
Yes, which was stupid. To a person, all of my cop friends describe similar behavior. People will talk to them the entire ride back to the county jail even after being explicitly told that whatever they say will be used against them later. People will give consent for a search while transporting drugs. Etc. etc. etc. But, IMO, even if he was stupid, he shouldn't have been in the position to have given consent and, further, as Sotomayor espoused, the officer's wrong should have excluded the fruits of that search.
Suppose an officer knocked on your door and wrote a summons for having a brass doorknob. In passing, he also asks if he can search your house. You say yes. Should the search be deemed unconstitutional?
The issue vis-à-vis the mistake of law was whether Heine could be stopped. Going all the way from a mistake of law in the initial stop to exclusion of the evidence from a voluntary consented search is a big, big step. I think a lot of people are reading the headline and thinking cops can search anyone anytime just by pretending they don't know 4th Amendment law. That's not anywhere close to what this case holds.
The fact that the consent was stupid -- as most are if they lead to a trial -- is completely immaterial. The Fourth Amendment doesn't protect you against your own stupidity.
The police stopped Heien on the suspicion of committing an offense that never actually existed in the first place. I think Justice Sotomayor got it right on this one, "Giving officers license to effect seizures so long as they can attach to their reasonable view of the facts some reasonable legal interpretation (or misinterpretation) that suggests a law has been violated significantly expands this authority. One wonders how a citizen seeking to be law-abiding and to structure his or her behavior to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters could do so."
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 confusing things. Let me restate, hopefully with less ambiguity.
Your previous post came across as dismissive of and insulting to an entire profession, a profession that is welcome and respected here. However you may feel about this ruling, it's never OK to come across that way. In your second post, you put your position across much more clearly and without wholesale dismissal of cops' training or professionalism, so I know you're capable of expressing yourself in ways that contribute positively to the conversation. Please keep that up, is all I'm asking.
If any of this is unclear or unacceptable, please shoot me a pm and we'll figure it out!
The answer, it seems to me, is wrath. The mind cannot foresee its own advance. --FA Hayek Specialization is for insects.
Reply With Quote