A federal appeals court has ruled that sheriff’s deputies in Virginia violated the constitutional rights of a Black man when they arrested him for refusing to identify himself
@KaraSara It's good to see some states occasionally giving their citizens some extra protections, but on the federal level it's still pretty bad.
We had two "reasonable mistake" cases in 2016. Where The Supreme Court held reasonable mistakes of law and fact are not unconstitutional government actions rising to a level requiring a remedy (and a right without a remedy is just words).
North Carolina v Hiein (cop THINKING that tail light out is illegal, even though it is not doesn't make stop and subsequent search illegal)
Utah v Strieff (illegal stop where cop LATER finds an outstanding warrant is okay)
This is another way of how police get away with being brutal!
”The judges ruled that the deputies are at least partially immune from being sued because they were operating under a good-faith belief that the statute gave them the right to demand identification.”
Aren’t stop and identify laws, one of the more basic laws? How can a police officer not now that?
Theres is legal precedent the a police officer can not use ignorance of the law as an excuse to “arrest” some one.
Here’s the post on it:
This is another way of how police get away with being brutal!
”The judges ruled that the deputies are at least partially immune from being sued because they were operating under a good-faith belief that the statute gave them the right to demand identification.”