There are scenarios where the law is unclear. I’ve asked cops about two scenarios and have recieved conflicting interpretations.
In PA you are now required to turn on your headlights whenever you are using your windshield wipers. That’s how the law is written. So, what if I’m using a product like Rain-X? I do not need to run my windshield wipers, am I required to turn on my lights?
In PA a beginning driver initially drives with a learner’s permit. The new driver must have an adult licensed driver in the car. What if that adult licensed driver is drunk? Who is breaking what law here?
I’ve asked cops about those two scenarios and have recieved wildly conflicting information. I’ve searched the PA motor vehicle code and have failed to figure it out on my own
Such nitpicky examples are typically taken care of in the sentencing phase of our judicial system.
If the Judge believes you that you ‘just happened’ to pick that up and ‘really didn’t know’ that possession was illegal, then you will get a very light sentence. Probably no jail time, and most or all of the fine suspended provided you aren’t caught doing the same thing within x years. So no serious penalty for the ‘accidental’ offender.
It seems like allowing the judicial system to deal with the occasional ‘ignorant’ offender is much preferable to any get-out-of-jail-free ‘ignorance of the law’ defense.
So a crime on your record, bail, lawyer fees, time off work, perhaps bad rep, maybe fired= “no serious penalty for the ‘accidental’ offender.”:dubious:
Malum prohibitum - acts that are illegal only because the law says so. I don’t know how well the principle holds up in many cases, but if you were unaware that act is illegal, and could not reasonably understand that it was without specific knowledge of the law, then ignorance should be an excuse.
Cheek vs. US allows ignorance because of the exact law that was being broken. Tax evasion requires intent and knowledge that the tax is correctly owed. One is liable for the tax regardless of whether one knows about it or not, but acting on an honest belief that one did not owe the tax does not rise to the level of intention require of tax evasion. He’ll never get penalties associated with the tax abated due to that ignorance either, but those are civil penalties. Tax evasion is specifically criminal, and is generally only able to be proved in the most egregious situations where the evader has made it quite clear that he knows he owes the tax but is trying to get out of paying it.
Re: Post #25 and “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights”
What I find bizarre is that police officers (you know, those who supposedly know the law) are NOT held accountable when they arrest people on made up laws. Seems like they get to use the “ignorance of the law” defense and are not arrested for false arrest or kidnapping or stealing when for example they arrest a black woman for not producing ID in California or confiscate cellphones recording them - neither of which is a crime. And the cops should know they are not crimes.