Today in Supreme Court History: December 15, 1791

12/15/1791: First Ten Amendments ratified.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (decided December 15, 2014): police can stop you for something they think is illegal but actually isn’t (here, broken brake light, not an offense under state law; upon consensual search of car they found cocaine)

Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (decided December 15, 2008): Maine statute prohibiting false advertising as to cigarettes (here, one brand falsely alleged it had less “tar” and nicotine than another) not preempted by federal statute prohibiting restrictions on advertising of cigarettes which are properly labeled as to health dangers

General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (decided December 15, 1997): trial court’s rulings as to admitting expert testimony (here, as to whether exposure to PCBs “promoted” plaintiff’s cancer) are reviewed as to abuse of discretion (this is the traditional standard, now being applied in the context of the guidelines announced in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993)

[Dr. Ed 2]

No -- Heien v. North Carolina was that a right brake light wasn't required under NC law.

Initially vehicles only had one on the left -- my grandmother's 1949 Willys Jeep had a left taillight and a left brakelight with only a reflector on the right.

It wasn't until the mid 1960s after Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed" was published that the Federal specs came out, requiring two brake lights (a third in 1984) and the square inches of lens, etc. Before then, cars could have a tail/brake light on both sides, and most cars did, but it was the option of the manufacturer.

The way around this is to require that all lights the vehicle was equipped with be working, except the way NC wrote that law it didn't apply to brake lights.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You're right about only one light required -- will correct. Thanks.

[Drewski]

(deleted)

[SRG2]

Sotomayor gets Heien right in dissent: permitting mistakes of law to justify seizures has the perverse effect of preventing or delaying the clarification of the law. Under such an approach, courts need not interpret statutory language but can instead simply decide whether an officer’s interpretation was reasonable.

[T]here is nothing in our case law requiring us to hold that a reasonable mistake of law can justify a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and quite a bit suggesting just the opposite. I also see nothing to be gained from such a holding, and much to be lost.

And, in effect, the majority held that a cop can be a judge in his own case

[Dan Schiavetta]

There’s no stopping point to that holding.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is the "straight face test" -- in all honesty, the officer probably had never seen a vehicle that didn't have two brake lights.

A 50 year old cop in 2010 would have been born in 1960 and would have gotten his driver's license in 1976 when essentially everything on the road had two brake lights. The patrolman working nights is probably in his 20s or 30s, born in 1980 or 1990 and less likely to have seen it.

Remember that cars did not last anywhere near as long as they do now, and that the high gas prices circa 1980 ($5/gallon in today's money) got a lot of the older cars off the road because they only got 7-8 MPG. So the odds of the officer actually seeing a one-light car on the road were not very good.

That's credible. Other things are not.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Of course there’s a stopping point: “The limit is that ‘the mistakes must be those of reasonable men.’”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sotomayor *finally* used her wise-Latina wisdom and exposed the folly of the majority. She sounds clearly right and her colleagues sound clearly wrong.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As a child, she regularly visited Puerto Rico where they probably *had* older vehicles, particularly pickup trucks, that only had one tail light.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Jesus.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I also see nothing to be gained from such a holding, and much to be lost.

This is a profoundly silly statement. The thing to be lost is that obviously guilty people get away with committing crimes. It’s one thing to say that the trade off is worth it. But the suggestion that there isn’t a cost is a little difficult to take seriously.

And, in effect, the majority held that a cop can be a judge in his own case.

How do you figure? The cop doesn’t get to be the judge —the actual judge still has to assess whether he was mistaken , and if so whether it was a reasonable mistake—and the doctrine will only ever come into play in someone else’s case.

[SRG2]

Judges get over-ruled as well. But this ruling gives judicial deference to cops.

[ReaderY]

Not only was he not “obviously” guilty of the “crime” the police officer stopped him for, he was clearly not guilty. The crime didn’t exist.

Look, if you don’t want to risk letting criminals get away, just have the police summarily shoot people they feel nervous about.(But wait, they CAN do that…) All rights, all process, risks letting some criminals go.

[Noscitur a sociis]

He was obviously guilty of the crime he was prosecuted and convicted for, the evidence of which was discovered only as a result of the stop. Under Sotomayor’s preferred rule, all evidence of that crime would have had to be suppressed, and all charges dismissed, despite the fact that there’s no serious question that the evidence proves him guilty.

Now if you want to argue that it’s worth paying that price to achieve some other important value or interest, that’s fine. But pretending the cost doesn’t exist is just disingenuous.

[SRG2]

Under Sotomayor’s preferred rule, all evidence of that crime would have had to be suppressed, and all charges dismissed, despite the fact that there’s no serious question that the evidence proves him guilty.

Now if you want to argue that it’s worth paying that price to achieve some other important value or interest, that’s fine.

I suspect you do not think the price is worth it.

[Jerry B.]

12/15/1791: First Ten Amendments ratified.

A day of sadness for Democrats.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually no -- they are the ones who wanted the Bill of Rights.
The Federalists didn't think it was necessary, that the rights were implied, but Jefferson said that people expected a written articulation of them.

Of course this was Jefferson's Democratic Party -- the remnants of which were purged by Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.

Thomas Jefferson would be MAGA today...

[Jerry B.]

I was thinking of current Democrats. Those since Democrats and Republicans changed sides.

[SRG2]

You must be under the misapprehension that the Bill of Rights consists only of the Second Amendment and selected texts and penumbrae of the First Amendment

[Noscitur a sociis]

Neither the Federalist nor the Democratic-Republican parties were formed until after the ratification of the Bill of Rights; the modern Democratic Party was a different party, not a continuation of the latter; and Roosevelt attempted to emphasize a contunuity with Jefferson’s party rather than a dissociation.

Other than that, great comment!