With Orwellian irony, the U.S. Supreme Court chose December 15, National Bill of Rights Day, to deliver its crushing blow to the Fourth Amendment.
Although the courts have historically held that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law, in its 8-1 ruling in Heien v. State of North Carolina, the Supreme Court gave police in America one more ready excuse to routinely violate the laws of the land, this time under the guise of ignorance.
The Heien case, which started with an improper traffic stop based on a police officer's ignorance of the law and ended with an unlawful search, seizure and arrest, was supposed to ensure that ignorance of the law did not become a ready excuse for government officials to routinely violate the law.
It failed to do so.
In failing to enforce the Constitution, the Court gave police the go-ahead to justify a laundry list of misconduct, from police shootings of unarmed citizens to SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, and the tasering of vulnerable individuals.
"I didn't know it was against the law" was the excuse police used to justify their repeated tasering of eight-months' pregnant Malaika Brooks during a routine traffic stop simply because she refused to sign a speeding ticket. The cops insisted they weren't aware that repeated electro-shocks qualified as constitutionally excessive and unreasonable force.
"I thought he was reaching for a gun." That was the excuse given when a police officer repeatedly shot at and once hit 70-year-old Bobby Canipe during a traffic stop. The cop saw the man reaching for his cane and, believing the cane to be a rifle and fearing for his life, opened fire. Police excused the shooting as "unfortunate" but "appropriate."
"He was resisting arrest." That was the rationale behind Eric Garner being placed in a fatal chokehold by police for allegedly resisting their attempts to arrest him for selling loose cigarettes.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
