ADVERTISEMENT

Yay American police state!

Whether or not you are in custody seems to be the conflict from what I just read. Or at least in this case. What draws that line?
 
Instead of a literalist interpretation it seems they're playing the interpretive angle... what was the purpose of the law.

I don't understand their Judicial Interpretation philosophy then -- perhaps just whatever suits them at the moment.
 
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Unless you're a cop.
The courts have decided that the police can't be held responsible for not knowing the law.
They're also allowed to lie to you.
They also aren't required to help you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
Interesting that the United States filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the police officer in this case. It seems the conservatives' decision was in line with what the US was arguing for.
I wonder if Biden agrees with this decision, guess it is technically a win for him since the DOJ was arguing for this outcome.
 
I think I agree with this ruling in this case based on the link. I don't think the dissent is compelling.

I'm not sure I totally understand what precedent this sets though or whether its a problem, or if this has a very narrow application.

In general I think police are way too protected from the consequences of misconduct. I don't know if this makes that problem worse.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT