Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate 4th Amendment.....

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. Yes ...

you are reading the decision incorrectly ... It's not about "opinion based stops"; but rather, a "mistake" in what the law actually required.

Further, there is, and will always be, "opinion based stops" (e.g., reckless driving).

Finally, Heien was attempting to argue that an officer's mistake in the understanding of what the law required invalidated the probable cause for the stop; but, more importantly, that this lack of probable cause should invalidate his consent to search his vehicle that turning up the dope. That would seem to make sense, since had the police officer understood the 1 tail-light rule, he (likely) would not have stopped Heien ... and no stop, no need for consent to search ... but that's not how the law works. Police need to only articulate a reason for a stop (frequently, mistaken for "probable cause&quot , they need Probable Cause (that a crime was/is about to be committed) for a search, unless someone in the vehicle consents to the search. These are separate matters.