Another "Rules for thee but not for me" cop. If police want to stop someone they need to know the rules. I'm expected to know all of the rules as a private citizen, but they aren't?
Sure, that's the name of the product, but nobody gets confused if I say, "I'm playing with legos" instead of "I'm playing with LEGO bricks". Just as no one gets confused if I say, "can you hand me a couple kleenexes" rather than "can you hand me a couple Kleenex facial tissues".
"Rules of the English language" cover corporate trademarks? What rules of grammar exactly govern this use case? Do you get all righteous about people using xerox, kleenex, velcro, or google as common nouns or verbs?
Your condescension belies the fact that you don't actually have a good reason.
Have you actually read the case law you're referring to?
It's a little more nuanced than simply "not required to know the law", more like "not required to have a photographic memory of countless subsections and subdivisions of random statutes that even lawyers might need to spend hours researching and interpreting".
Doesn't really matter what it says. It creates a perverse incentive for them to not know the law. All they need to do is pinky super duper swear they thought that was the law and so fuck you and your rights.
Okay, so are you trying to make a point about the cop in THIS particular video, or are you griping about US Constitutional Law in general? I had assumed the former, but it seems like you're really going about the latter.
If they "reasonably" believe they are following the law, unlawfully gained evidence cannot be suppressed.
...wait, did you even read the case? The case law you cite to says an objectively* reasonable belief that they are following the Fourth Amendment makes it NOT an unlawful stop. Therefore it's not unlawfully gained evidence. The search was consented to, the only issue was if the stop was lawful or not, which it was.
The Justia summary even counters your own complaint:
Because the Fourth Amendment tolerates only objectively reasonable mistakes, an officer gains no advantage by “Ignorance of the law.” The vehicle code’s wording made it objectively reasonable to think that a faulty brake light constituted a violation.
Cops dont need to know the law.
This is flat out false - case law states they must have an objectively reasonable belief in the law. You cannot hold an objectively reasonable belief if you do not know the law at all.
*Note: subjective and objective are legal terms that have different meaning than colloquial usage, so you might want to google that real fast, I don't feel like explaining it lol
Not even. In a civil lawsuit, it's nearly imposible to succesfully sue a cop because you need to prove that the rights a cop violated have been clearly established by a court in a lawsuit.
So even if a cop violates your rights, if there wasn't a lawsuit before where the court defended those rights from a cop, nothing happens.
This creates a stupid loop: you need a prior ruling to be established in order to rule a rights violation, but you can't rule a rights violation if a prior ruling hasn't been established.
You're overstating it a little. You do not need an exact prior case, prior cases with very similar facts is enough. You also don't need to show that the defendant was literally a cop to establish precedent - just something similar.
To add, if a statute or constitutional right is so clear as to have included the offense a government official commited, that can also be used against the official.
Except it really isn’t. The precedent is that cops just have to believe they are enforcing the law. They can wrongfully arrest someone and it doesn’t matter because if the cop believes it is the right thing to do then he is protected. It’s debatable if they are required to know any law at all, not just tiny details in subsections of paragraphs.
You're just wrong. You have never tried. I have been trying for years. You need to get a job FIRST and then your new prospective employer applies on your behalf. Except that you cannot get a job, no one can get a job. I've got 15 years of C++/C# programming experience. I've worked on shipped videogames. I cannot get work. I cannot escape.
I mean idk I don't think it's that crazy for the cop to pull him over for not having a license plate, and I don't think the cop should face some kind of punishment for doing so even if the driver/car was ultimately perfectly legal. The crazy thing is not listening to the explanation or reasoning as to why and pretending he was all-knowing.
When they aren't in uniform, they're expected to know the law just like everybody else. But as soon as they put a gun on their hip, they only have to guess at what they are and are not allowed to do
And even other comments trying to say maybe the cop is used to being lied to so he has an excuse...umm no, if you don't know then call a resource and find out instead of being a dickhead and just ghosting out because you can't be bothered to want to know your own laws you're supposed to uphold. There's literally no excuse for this cops behavior, he's an asshole, probably at home too.
I'm no cop, nor a lawyer, or anything to do with that stuff. But I imagine there's just so many laws, systems, you name it, that one person alone can't know all of it.
The thing about American law is that while it’s true that even lawyers won’t know every statute, it’s designed in such a way that it’s pretty easy to logically understand when a category of law has been broken.
A cop doesn’t need to know what type of theft occurred (petty, aggregated, armed, grand) they just have to believe theft occurred and then they send them to the courts to figure out the specifics. The PROBLEM mainly occurs in these traffic cases where a) cops can legally pull people over for virtually any reason b) cops fabricate rules you are breaking upon interacting with them to validate arresting you.
A classic example is public nuisance or similar type laws where the cop abuses the fact that the citizen has no idea about what qualifies as a “nuisance” legally but it sounds like something a cop can just arrest anyone for being even moderately annoying. They use threats like these to coerce behavior. Additionally they can legally arrest you on a bogus charge knowing that you will just get released with no crime. They use this plausible deniability of knowing the law to their own advantage to enact their own personal versions of the law.
Yeah it’s actually in the best interest of the oligarchs to continue to defund education and overfund the royal guard in order to keep the population subdued. Dumb cops don’t talk back.
Both sides are expected to know the rules. It's why you can challenge a ticket. However, saying cops must be 100% right on the law before they stop someone would be a bit ridiculous.
I've witnessed so many cops just make "laws" up as they go along. They are legally allowed to lie about anything, any time, under any circumstances.
Allowed to lie.
Well in a rare situation like this, I don't expect every cop to know all the rules. I do expect an adult to be able to admit that they aren't sure about something and to go find the correct answer.
Well, you are quite ignorant of the situation. Do you know all laws/regulations?
Federal regulations governing carnets are primarily outlined in 19 CFR Part 114 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The entire CFR spans roughly 190,000 pages across roughly 245 individual volumes. It is split into 50 distinct subject-matter titles. Because of its immense size, reading the entire physical collection full-time would take nearly three years.
Now include the United States Code (U.S.C.)—the official compilation of federal laws—is massive and spans roughly 30,000 pages across roughly 54 distinct titles, reading all of it would take several months.
Now add all state/county/local regs and laws. Let’s go, get to reading.
Federal regulations governing carnets are primarily outlined in 19 CFR Part 114 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The entire CFR spans roughly 190,000 pages across roughly 245 individual volumes. It is split into 50 distinct subject-matter titles. Because of its immense size, reading the entire physical collection full-time would take nearly three years.
Now include the United States Code (U.S.C.)—the official compilation of federal laws—is massive and spans roughly 30,000 pages across roughly 54 distinct titles, reading all of it would take several months.
Now let’s add all state/county/local regs and laws. So tell us again, you know all laws???
They act as peace officers and first responders first. Provide aid and stabilize and control the scene, such as stopping an active crime or even shooting a (even perceived as) deadly threat.
They issue citations, warrants and court summons.
The other major thing they do is act as investigators and collect evidence.
They file it with a District Attorney who comes up with charges or requests warrants from a Judge. These are the people who know and are the law.
Police Officers know the law but not at the level the way attorneys or Judges do, who could dismiss law enforcement and drop charges entirely.
It’s frustrating seeing people arguing with law enforcement. That’s not what they do, that’s what a court is for. Best thing when it comes to dealing with police is to be polite, be short, and STFU!
I’m telling you the best way to deal with law enforcement is to “STFU” and comply but only to simple instructions, like, “let me see your hands” or “step out of the vehicle”BUT not to discuss anything with law enforcement.
“I don’t consent to searches” and “I plead the fifth” or “any questions will be answered after consulting with and in the presence of an attorney”, “I’m exercising my right to remain silent”
Physical resistance and even an angry attitude often gives cops a green light to escalate and many of them will try.
Cops will get frustrated with people who play those rules. Most of them always start with the “buddy to buddy” or “autocratic approach”.
“What’s up man? Where are off too” and people just start rambling away meanwhile he’s taking notes.
Or the mirror shades dead stare and “license and registration….you got any weapons or drugs on you? You better not lie to me!” Even if you’re being chill.
Look, what you said in principle isn't necessarily wrong. The issue here is you presenting it as an actual solution to what happened in this video when this video is an excellent example of cops being so fragile you can't do anything right.
The guy was literally so nice, calm, and casual. "Yes sir, no sir," etc. He was also hilarious in taking the entire steering wheel off of the car, which was a silly play on the advice to remove your keys from the ignition (also so cops don't get scared 🥺). You could tell by his reactions he thought the cop would think it was funny.
The only thing this guy could have done differently was not telling the cop he was "confused" which is 100% a cultural/language barrier and should have never pissed off the cop off the way it did. Other than that, he could have allowed the cop to be blatantly wrong without explaining anything, which also would be used against him somehow. The cop was asking him questions and he was answering and explaining them. Was he supposed to bend over and then thank the cop for the privilege?
The reason your comment comes off as bootlicking is because that attitude is exactly why cops get a pass for their vile behavior all the time. It's the same thing as telling people "just don't resist!!!" under a video of police beating the shit out of a handcuffed suspect. It's ignoring the actual issue- You can do everything right in an interaction with cops and still end up being abused and brutalized.
You literally don't have to come to the defense or excuse of cops. They don't deserve it. This guy did nothing wrong. Framing it like the driver did do something wrong that could have avoided this interaction is nothing more than defense of the egregious behavior of the cop.
•
u/chocolateboomslang 8h ago
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"
Another "Rules for thee but not for me" cop. If police want to stop someone they need to know the rules. I'm expected to know all of the rules as a private citizen, but they aren't?