The police can officially and "legally" lie... And, obviously, will continue to "testilie"...

From the same glorious 9th Circuit that a Nevada federal judge Gloria Navarro cited in denying to a criminal defendant his 6th Amendment constitutional right to counsel of his choice in a criminal proceeding, comes yet another pro-prosecution case.

Ruling that the police can lie to the suspect at a traffic stop, and that does not cause the evidence to be suppressed.

This is not what the police routinely tell schoolchildren when they come to talk about their profession.

You know, kids, I lied yesterday 50 times at traffic stops, and, if I stop you, I will lie to you, too, to get a conviction against you or to drum up the necessary "traffic ticket quota" to get a bonus.

Now, clap your hands, I am honorable!

The problem with "legally" allowing the police to lie is that the police do not know where to stop in lying - and go into "testilying", see, for example, here and here, lying under oath in grand jury proceedings and criminal jury trials, as well as at pre-trial hearings.

Lying through their teeth.

Under oath.

As if that is their God-given right.

That's why I personally consider the 9th Circuit's latest bow to the police to continue "legally" lying - a very bad precedent.