As there seemed to be a great deal of interest in this in my "Illegal Arrest" poll, I'll go ahead and start a relevant thread.

The questions are; What can LE do should they decide they want to search your person, vehicle, or your home whether you've committed a crime or not?

Under what circumstances can they detain or arrest you?

What impact does the Patriot Act have on the 4th amendment at the Federal, State and local level?

How do you feel about it as a US citizen, do you think it's right or Constitutional?

Let the debate begin!

Asset forfeiture
 Section 712A-10

Your question is very broad making it difficult to answer. Are you suggesting an officer who is not following the rules or are you suggesting an instance where a law is passed giving LEOs the power to ignore the 4th?

A recent SCOTUS decision essentially says that even if a stop was not justified, the fruits of that search may be used.

The case arose from a traffic stop for a busted tail light and via that probable cause to stop drugs were eventually found in the vehicle. But, North Carolina law says you only need one functioning tail light so the stop was technically without probable cause. Initially the State Appeals Court ruled the search and seizure of the drugs illegal. On appeal to the SCOTUS, they found that the stop was reasonable even if the officer made a material error in law to make the initial stop.

Chief Justice John Roberts held that it did not. “Because the officer’s mistake about the brake-light law was reasonable,” Roberts declared, “the stop in this case was lawful under the Fourth Amendment.”

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/15/supreme-court-sides-with-police-in-4th-a

This sets up a very troubling dichotomy IMHO. Everyday citizens can, have, and will continue to be prosecuted for breaking laws because "ignorance of the law is no excuse" yet police officers, interpreting laws as the basis for depriving you of your civil rights are somehow immune to this same level of responsibility. So, in effect, those that are supposed to uphold the law have the luxury of having to know less about those laws than the average citizen. 

A recent SCOTUS decision essentially says that even if a stop was not justified, the fruits of that search may be used.

The case arose from a traffic stop for a busted tail light and via that probable cause to stop drugs were eventually found in the vehicle. But, North Carolina law says you only need one functioning tail light so the stop was technically without probable cause. Initially the State Appeals Court ruled the search and seizure of the drugs illegal. On appeal to the SCOTUS, they found that the stop was reasonable even if the officer made a material error in law to make the initial stop.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/15/supreme-court-sides-with-police-in-4th-a

This sets up a very troubling dichotomy IMHO. Everyday citizens can, have, and will continue to be prosecuted for breaking laws because "ignorance of the law is no excuse" yet police officers, interpreting laws as the basis for depriving you of your civil rights are somehow immune to this same level of responsibility. So, in effect, those that are supposed to uphold the law have the luxury of having to know less about those laws than the average citizen.

So, basically, a vehicle stop due to the officer's mistaken understanding of the law (either unintentional or fabricated) can now be ignored if it results in a productive search and/or seizure.

"Sir, I stopped you because I saw you were making a right hand turn on green.  The sign clearly reads "RIGHT ON RED ARROW AFTER STOP"..."

So, basically, a vehicle stop due to the officer's mistaken understanding of the law (either unintentional or fabricated) can now be ignored if it results in a productive search and/or seizure.

"Sir, I stopped you because I saw you were making a right hand turn on green.  The sign clearly reads "RIGHT ON RED ARROW AFTER STOP"..."

Per SCOTUS, it can as long as the "mistake" was "reasonable".....whatever that means.....

Per SCOTUS, it can as long as the "mistake" was "reasonable".....whatever that means.....

The original question still needs clarification
I think but you did bring up an interesting case. On the face it does seem a little scary but I don't think we need to be that worried. Reasonableness is and has always been an important factor in judging the actions of both police and citizens. Things like use of force comes back to a reasonableness standard.
I think the court recognizes that police are not perfect and technical details can be missed. The courts have had some leeway in considering fruits of a poisonous tree in a case despite some problem in the way an officer did something. All of this is weighed against reasonableness. They look at the severity of the officer's mistake vs the severity of the crime that was discovered. If it came down to a blatant mistake for a petty misdemeanor prosecution it wouldn't fly. On the other extreme consider a case if the officer misinterpreted a poorly worded law that led to a very minor inconvenience on the behalf of a driver and then the officer discovered a freshly murdered body. The courts can weigh it all and say the mistake was understandable and the level of crime is such that the minor mistake should cause justice to not be served. I wish I could put that in better words but I cannot recall where I had read that, some case notes somewhere perhaps.
Officers are not really supposed to give legal opinions yet they are required to read a law and apply it. Some laws are poorly written and they can try to enforce the letter of the law or they can try to enforce the intent of the law. I don't know if the tail light law was clearly written or not, I am merely offering an explanation of why sometimes an officer might be technically wrong but a mistake was reasonable.

The original question still needs clarification
I think but you did bring up an interesting case. On the face it does seem a little scary but I don't think we need to be that worried. Reasonableness is and has always been an important factor in judging the actions of both police and citizens. Things like use of force comes back to a reasonableness standard.
I think the court recognizes that police are not perfect and technical details can be missed. The courts have had some leeway in considering fruits of a poisonous tree in a case despite some problem in the way an officer did something. All of this is weighed against reasonableness. They look at the severity of the officer's mistake vs the severity of the crime that was discovered. If it came down to a blatant mistake for a petty misdemeanor prosecution it wouldn't fly. On the other extreme consider a case if the officer misinterpreted a poorly worded law that led to a very minor inconvenience on the behalf of a driver and then the officer discovered a freshly murdered body. The courts can weigh it all and say the mistake was understandable and the level of crime is such that the minor mistake should cause justice to not be served. I wish I could put that in better words but I cannot recall where I had read that, some case notes somewhere perhaps.
Officers are not really supposed to give legal opinions yet they are required to read a law and apply it. Some laws are poorly written and they can try to enforce the letter of the law or they can try to enforce the intent of the law. I don't know if the tail light law was clearly written or not, I am merely offering an explanation of why sometimes an officer might be technically wrong but a mistake was reasonable.

"Reasonable" is a subjective term and open to interpretation. The same situation judged by one trier of fact may not be deemed reasonable by another. The fact remains that the SCOTUS decision sets up a double standard. Police don't need to be responsible to know the law they are enforcing, and in the process inevitably denying citizen's civil rights. But, the citizens are responsible for knowing all the laws, the "ignorance is no excuse" meme. And that, IMHO, is the most offensive part of the decision.

It also sets up a problematic "slippery slope" situation. So in the SCOTUS case it was reasonable that the officer not know the traffic code pertaining to tail lights. So the next time it's not tail lights but a right turn on red (where legal) and the officer pulls you over. Or stopping and detaining an open carrier (where legal) just because of the open carry. The issue is not that it was reasonable that the officer didn't know it wasn't illegal to operate a vehicle with only one tail light, but where will the constant chipping away of our fundamental rights stop? 

"Reasonable" is a subjective term and open to interpretation. The same situation judged by one trier of fact may not be deemed reasonable by another. The fact remains that the SCOTUS decision sets up a double standard. Police don't need to be responsible to know the law they are enforcing, and in the process inevitably denying citizen's civil rights. But, the citizens are responsible for knowing all the laws, the "ignorance is no excuse" meme. And that, IMHO, is the most offensive part of the decision.

It also sets up a problematic "slippery slope" situation. So in the SCOTUS case it was reasonable that the officer not know the traffic code pertaining to tail lights. So the next time it's not tail lights but a right turn on red (where legal) and the officer pulls you over. Or stopping and detaining an open carrier (where legal) just because of the open carry. The issue is not that it was reasonable that the officer didn't know it wasn't illegal to operate a vehicle with only one tail light, but where will the constant chipping away of our fundamental rights stop?

I would really take this on a case by case basis. I don't think this will create a slippery slope but I do acknowledge there is potential. The officer did make a mistake but I think we should still examine the circumstances of the mistake. Like I said one example I might consider as reasonable was if a law was poorly written so as to be confusing to a non-lawyer. I don't know if that is the case though. However I do think that any standard applied to an officer not understanding a complicated law should also apply to someone being examined for a violation of that law. The violation certainly needs to be thrown out if an officer makes a mistake but it might not follow that everything following should be thrown out. I understand that people fear there will be abuse of this and though that is a danger it doesn't worry me. If officers really are going to lie and abuse the system to circumvent the 4th then this really doesn't matter. The officer would just make up something instead of pretending he didn't know some technicality.

Yes in general ignorance is not a defense but in some cases it is. Notice how reasonableness factors into ignorance as a defense.

§702-220  Ignorance or mistake of law; belief that conduct not legally prohibited.  In any prosecution, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant engaged in the conduct or caused the result alleged under the belief that the conduct or result was not legally prohibited when the defendant acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in:
     (1)  A statute or other enactment;
     (2)  A judicial decision, opinion, or judgment;
     (3)  An administrative order or administrative grant of permission; or
     (4)  An official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0702/HRS_0702-0220.htm


I found an case I think illustrates what I was getting at earlier. The officer arrested a person for an outstanding warrant and because of that meth and a pistol were discovered. Problem was that somewhere along the line there was a mistake and the warrant did not actually exist. It wasn't the officers fault in any way but in the end he arrested someone who should not have been arrested. The court weighed the mistake against the miscarriage of justice in having a guilty person go free.

Petitioner’s claim that police negligence automatically triggers suppression cannot be squared with the principles underlying the exclusionary rule, as they have been explained in our cases. In light of our repeated holdings that the deterrent effect of suppression must be substantial and outweigh any harm to the justice system, e.g., Leon, 468 U. S., at 909–910, we conclude that when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, any marginal deterrence does not “pay its way.” Id., at 907–908, n. 6 (internal quotation marks omitted). In such a case, the criminal should not “go free because the constable has blundered.” People v. Defore, 242 N. Y. 13, 21, 150 N. E. 585, 587 (1926) (opinion of the Court by Cardozo, J.).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-513.ZO.html

You are correct about reasonableness, it has problems but it is also essential in creating a justice system that works. Without it you might need massive law books to describe anything remotely complex. For example how could you evaluate someone's claim that they felt fear for their life without looking at it with a reasonable standard?

I would really take this on a case by case basis. I don't think this will create a slippery slope but I do acknowledge there is potential. The officer did make a mistake but I think we should still examine the circumstances of the mistake. Like I said one example I might consider as reasonable was if a law was poorly written so as to be confusing to a non-lawyer. I don't know if that is the case though. However I do think that any standard applied to an officer not understanding a complicated law should also apply to someone being examined for a violation of that law. The violation certainly needs to be thrown out if an officer makes a mistake but it might not follow that everything following should be thrown out. I understand that people fear there will be abuse of this and though that is a danger it doesn't worry me. If officers really are going to lie and abuse the system to circumvent the 4th then this really doesn't matter. The officer would just make up something instead of pretending he didn't know some technicality.

Yes in general ignorance is not a defense but in some cases it is. Notice how reasonableness factors into ignorance as a defense.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0702/HRS_0702-0220.htm


I found an case I think illustrates what I was getting at earlier. The officer arrested a person for an outstanding warrant and because of that meth and a pistol were discovered. Problem was that somewhere along the line there was a mistake and the warrant did not actually exist. It wasn't the officers fault in any way but in the end he arrested someone who should not have been arrested. The court weighed the mistake against the miscarriage of justice in having a guilty person go free.http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-513.ZO.html

You are correct about reasonableness, it has problems but it is also essential in creating a justice system that works. Without it you might need massive law books to describe anything remotely complex. For example how could you evaluate someone's claim that they felt fear for their life without looking at it with a reasonable standard?

I think you are misreading the statue you quoted. Look at it again. It essentially says that if you rely on some official or official statement interpreting a law, which is later found to be invalid or erroneous, you can use that as an affirmative defense. It's called detrimental reliance. And please note that "reasonable" in the language is that the defendant acts on "reasonable reliance" on the information provided. Please also note that it's only an affirmative defense, the same type of defense as a self defense shooting in Hawaii, meaning that you would have to admit to the crime but claim there was a good reason you "broke the law."

As for your second example, there was no mistake in interpreting the law. There was a clerical error that showed the suspect had a warrant. That was beyond the control of the officer and in no way involved any interpretation of law.

I think you are misreading the statue you quoted. Look at it again. It essentially says that if you rely on some official or official statement interpreting a law, which is later found to be invalid or erroneous, you can use that as an affirmative defense. It's called detrimental reliance. And please note that "reasonable" in the language is that the defendant acts on "reasonable reliance" on the information provided. Please also note that it's only an affirmative defense, the same type of defense as a self defense shooting in Hawaii, meaning that you would have to admit to the crime but claim there was a good reason you "broke the law."

As for your second example, there was no mistake in interpreting the law. There was a clerical error that showed the suspect had a warrant. That was beyond the control of the officer and in no way involved any interpretation of law.

Granted I am not a lawyer but when I read "reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law" combined with the below mentioned "(1)  A statute or other enactment;" I think it to mean a reasonable reading of the HRS. Is not the HRS an official statement of the law? I do understand that the affirmative defense comes later.
I just wanted to point out that the blanket statement of "ignorance of the law is not a defense' can be misleading and not always true. It is not however some trump card you could expect to rely upon if you got in trouble.

Granted I am not a lawyer but when I read "reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law" combined with the below mentioned "(1)  A statute or other enactment;" I think it to mean a reasonable reading of the HRS. Is not the HRS an official statement of the law? I do understand that the affirmative defense comes later.
I just wanted to point out that the blanket statement of "ignorance of the law is not a defense' can be misleading and not always true. It is not however some trump card you could expect to rely upon if you got in trouble.

IANAL either, but I do have some experience reading and interpreting statutory language. I could be wrong, but I take HRS702-220 to mean an official statement from somebody or agency. For example, a new law is passed that disallows you to drive a Toyota. The AG opines that it only means a new Toyota and that those that currently own Toyotas are not doing anything illegal and publishes that opinion as guidance. You get arrested for driving a Toyota and go to court. The judge says the AG's opinion was incorrect, you claim you were following the AG's advice and therefore should be acquitted after detrimental reliance on the AG's advice.

I'd be happy to hear from a lawyer as to if my interpretation is correct.

The tailgate stop and search was not done incorrectly. Read the story. The suspect gave consent. Give no consent IF you have something to hide and yes that may be RS if an LEO can articulate the facts.

What can an LEO do if they want to search is governed by the 4th amendment. No search can be done on your person with a REP. Leave a window open no REP. Only way an LEO may search is with consent, search warrant, exigent circumstance, mobile conveyance (limited). Any search an LEO would need to articulate PC.

What gets confusing is a terry stop.  Under a terry stop an LEO may temporarily detain an individual with RS that criminal activity has been, is or will be afoot as well as BOLO, etc. then an officer may detain you with reasonable force including an external pat down for weapons and if during a pat down an officer finds what he believes and can articulate as contraband then it becomes an SIA.

They cannot circumvent the fourth amendment if they do then all subsequent evidence would be thrown out from the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine which didn't hold in the other case since, again, the news article stated the suspect gave consent.

The tailgate stop and search was not done incorrectly. Read the story. The suspect gave consent. Give no consent IF you have something to hide and yes that may be RS if an LEO can articulate the facts.

What can an LEO do if they want to search is governed by the 4th amendment. No search can be done on your person with a REP. Leave a window open no REP. Only way an LEO may search is with consent, search warrant, exigent circumstance, mobile conveyance (limited). Any search an LEO would need to articulate PC.

What gets confusing is a terry stop.  Under a terry stop an LEO may temporarily detain an individual with RS that criminal activity has been, is or will be afoot as well as BOLO, etc. then an officer may detain you with reasonable force including an external pat down for weapons and if during a pat down an officer finds what he believes and can articulate as contraband then it becomes an SIA.

They cannot circumvent the fourth amendment if they do then all subsequent evidence would be thrown out from the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine which didn't hold in the other case since, again, the news article stated the suspect gave consent.

I would beg to differ with you analysis. Since the stop was improper (NC law says only one tail light is needed) anything that happened afterwards was technically fruit of the poisonous tree. Without the PC (none existed) the stop would not have been made. Granted the suspect messed up by consenting to the search, but that is another matter.

The larger issue is, again, that there is now a double standard for LE and citizens in terms of being responsible to "know the law."

Your explanation of the Terry Law is also a bit off. Yes, an officer may temporarily detain you if he believes there has been, or about to be a crime to investigate that crime. But that does not grant carte blanc to do a pat down. The officer, in addition to having RAS of the aforementioned crime must ALSO have RAS that a subject is armed. While is is a fine line to tread, LE treat everyone, everytime as they are armed so therefore that has become their de facto RAS for the pat down. Not exactly the letter of the law but a clear example of how rights are incrementally chipped away and how acceptance of seemingly minor infringements can be, over time, accepted as normal practice.

From the Terry v. Ohio ruling"

Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. Cf. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 174-176 (1949); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645 (1878). [n23] And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United States supra.

LEO's aren't your friends and it is a citizens right to know the law. Trust me they teach that. I re-read the decision and see the issue at hand and agree and also disagree. The traffic stop was illegal then LEO asked to search the car with individual giving consent. I THINK if the individual did not give consent the it would be a different unknown story.  Unless he justified that eyes were dilated or something else.

You are correct about a terry stop but RS is easy to articulate.

LEO's aren't your friends and it is a citizens right to know the law. Trust me they teach that. I re-read the decision and see the issue at hand and agree and also disagree. The traffic stop was illegal then LEO asked to search the car with individual giving consent. I THINK if the individual did not give consent the it would be a different unknown story.  Unless he justified that eyes were dilated or something else.

You are correct about a terry stop but RS is easy to articulate.

It is not that they are not your friend, they just have a job to do. Sometimes that means doing something you won't like (getting a ticket) and sometimes that means doing something you do like (catching someone who stole something from you). But yes it is important for citizens to know their rights, not necessarily because all cops will try to trick you but because they are humans just like the rest of us and can make a mistake. An educated public will help to keep things in check.

It is not that they are not your friend, they just have a job to do. Sometimes that means doing something you won't like (getting a ticket) and sometimes that means doing something you do like (catching someone who stole something from you). But yes it is important for citizens to know their rights, not necessarily because all cops will try to trick you but because they are humans just like the rest of us and can make a mistake. An educated public will help to keep things in check.

No, you are incorrect. Police are not your friend (at least in terms of a stop...). And yes, they will, and do, "trick you" at every opportunity in order to accomplish their goals. Have you ever wondered why it's legal for LE to lie to us but illegal for us to lie to them? Yes, police are human and make mistakes, which is why they have the qualified immunity that prevents a "good officer" from getting sued after making a "mistake" that wasn't willful or negligent.

You are correct that an educated public will help keep things in check.

LEO's aren't your friends and it is a citizens right to know the law. Trust me they teach that. I re-read the decision and see the issue at hand and agree and also disagree. The traffic stop was illegal then LEO asked to search the car with individual giving consent. I THINK if the individual did not give consent the it would be a different unknown story.  Unless he justified that eyes were dilated or something else.

You are correct about a terry stop but RS is easy to articulate.

I agree. If the driver didn't give consent we probably wouldn't be talking about the case. Never, ever, give consent to search your car/home/person....if the police have RAS or PC they will do it regardless. If they're fishing or working on a "hunch" without sufficient RAS or PC then giving consent just allows them to search when they otherwise would not have been able to do so.

RAS is easy, too easy in many people's opinion....

No, you are incorrect. Police are not your friend (at least in terms of a stop...). And yes, they will, and do, "trick you" at every opportunity in order to accomplish their goals. Have you ever wondered why it's legal for LE to lie to us but illegal for us to lie to them? Yes, police are human and make mistakes, which is why they have the qualified immunity that prevents a "good officer" from getting sued after making a "mistake" that wasn't willful or negligent.

You are correct that an educated public will help keep things in check.

Yes their job naturally has to involve some trickery but they are not out there just to make up something to get you on. If an officer saw you run the stop sign and stops you he is probably not trying to trick you into thinking you ran the stop sign, he is just enforcing a law passed by someone else. It really isn't something you would define as a friend or not a friend.

And in some forms it is not illegal to lie to an officer. You cannot falsely report a crime for example, but they cannot arrest you for just a simple lie.

Yes their job naturally has to involve some trickery but they are not out there just to make up something to get you on. If an officer saw you run the stop sign and stops you he is probably not trying to trick you into thinking you ran the stop sign, he is just enforcing a law passed by someone else. It really isn't something you would define as a friend or not a friend.

And in some forms it is not illegal to lie to an officer. You cannot falsely report a crime for example, but they cannot arrest you for just a simple lie.

If they're federal they can. 18 USC 1001.

There's a much simpler solution than lying - not talking. Oh and if you lie in a way that hampers them - they can slap you with an obstruction of justice charge. Will it stick? Maybe not but simpler to just not lie and route any truths through your lawyer.

If you did something and don't want to self incriminate - don't! Stfu! Ask if you're free to go and if not have your lawyer resolve it.

People watch too much L&O.