Justices Rule in Favor of the Police

In a recent Supreme Court Ruling the court ruled in favor of the Police, stating that a Police officer's mistake of law doesn't necessarily mean the suspect goes free. Chief Justice Roberts wrote "To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials."  He went on to say "Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer's understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on either ground," So what does that mean to everyday citizens?

Under criminal law, it is widely held that if in the normal course of their duties, police officers act in good faith as to their belief of a fact, whatever the results are - the courts have found the police officers actions justifiable. 

As demonstrated through the unfortunate circumstances and cases recently played out in the media, police officers are given wide areas of latitude in order to perform their duties by the courts. The courts have found that while they have the opportunity to "Monday morning quarterback" a situation, the police in the moment do not have that luxury. 

My job as a defense attorney is to bring out the facts, and show that the officer should have known, or did know that what action they were undertaking was un-constitutional, and a violation of their client's rights. 

As a prior police officer I am in a perfect position to be able to place myself in those shoes, and determine whether or not an officer was acting in "good faith" in your case.