In yet another huge blow to our Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled in Jan 2015 that a police officer can violate your 4th Amendment rights if they make a ‘reasonable’ mistake regarding the law.
If you are ignorant of the law, that is no excuse, but if a cop is ignorant of the law, he can violate your rights.
As incredible as it sounds, any cop can ‘play dumb’ and proceed to do anything he wants to you and feel secure that his excuse of ignorance will shield him.
How in the hell can a cop be expected to uphold the law if he doesn’t even know the law?
SEE PAGE 2 TO CONTINUE:
idiot’s in charge of idiots’
This is so much bull$#%&!@* and it’s always misquoted by corrupt judges and even more corrupt attorneys. The cops are sworn officers of the law also and are expected to know the law and abide by it.
“Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law.”
In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.
So you can see that ignorance of the law is the PERFECT excuse for the public since a ‘sworn officer of the law’ is expected to know it, NOT a layman!
If a judge makes the statement “Ignorance of the law does not excuse” and nothing more s/he is telling you a half-truth which is just the same as any other lie. Eject that $#%&!@*hole and demand an honest judge for lying to you!
Wake up people!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XH4Oj86sGU
If you don’t know the law, how are you supposed to uphold it? Turn in your badge before you go and get someone hurt!
I’ve always heard that Ignorance of the law is” NO Excuse” that should stand for everybody, if it really true!
That is what the police Academy is for to make sure they do know.
if there getting a check then thy better know it or stop getting the paycheck
The 14th amendment allows equality under the law, it makes no exception for any special ‘cl$#%&!@*’ of people or employment of said ‘cl$#%&!@*’, referring to governmental employees or attorney/s or any other ‘cl$#%&!@*’ of people. In the 1908 case of Ughbanks v. Armstrong, the Fuller Court yet again discussed the Fourteenth Amendment in similar terms, but this time mentioning punishments: “The last-named Amendment was not intended to, and does not, limit the powers of a State in dealing with crime committed within its own borders or with the punishment thereof, although no State can deprive particular persons or cl$#%&!@*es of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law. Pericles said that a person’s wealth or prominence should not influence his eligibility for public employment or affect the justice he receives. Similarly, Chief Justice Hughes defended the inscription “equal justice under law” by referring to the judicial oath of office, which requires judges to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich”. Decades later, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall made a similar point: “The principles which would have governed with $10,000 at stake should also govern when thousands have become billions. That is the essence of equal justice under law.”
I thought ignorance of the law was no excuse.
This is why, even if you have nothing to hide, you never, ever, ever give any law enforcement permission to search anything w/o a warrant. Make them state to a judge exactly what they are searching for.