Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
Yes, I understand all that, but don't their rulings determine future policy for law enforcement?  |
Their rulings help an officer to decide whether or not a law has been broken but the underlying law is no different than it was before the ruling was made. The key word in your question is 'determine.' Not to beat this completely to death but the court does not determine
what the law is, it determines
whether or not the law applies in a given situation.
Another side to the question involves civil disputes. Let's say you want to build a house on the beach so you buy a lot after determining that the zoning of the parcel permits the construction of single-family residences. Adjacent lots already have houses on them. Then, one day, you learn that the zoning board has
rezoned your property such that you are not allowed to build a dwelling on it. You can build a deck but nothing else. Instantly, the value of your parcel drops from $1M to $50k. You sue the government for $950k argueing that the downzoning amounts to a 'taking' under the emminent domain provision of the Constitution. You lose at the local level. You appeal and win at the state level. The state appeals and wins. You appeal to the Supreme Court.
This really happened (in South Carolina). The citizen won and the state was ordered to compensate him as called for in the Constitution.
I thought this specific example might help clarify the intent of the question of the effect of the court's rulings on the determination of policy (as enacted by law).