Posted on 06/20/2016 12:21:30 PM PDT by MarchonDC09122009
https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-weakens-protections-against-unconstitutional-p?utm_term=.bsYgvzddN#.tlERGMqqX
Supreme Court Weakens Protections Against Unconstitutional Police Stops The 5-3 decision prompts a sharp rebuke from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who writes that those targeted by police “warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere.” Originally posted on Jun. 20, 2016, at 12:16 p.m. Updated on Jun. 20, 2016, at 1:07 p.m.
BuzzFeed News Reporter Chris Geidner/BuzzFeed
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday made it easier for police to get evidence admitted in a prosecution even if that evidence was obtained after an unconstitutional stop.
In a 5-3 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court that the drugs and paraphernalia found by a Utah police officer on Edward Strieff after an unconstitutional stop are admissible because police found that there was an arrest warrant outstanding for Strieff and that warrant "attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized."
The decision was a reversal of the Utah Supreme Court's decision tossing out the evidence under the Fourth Amendment's so-called "exclusionary rule," which holds that evidence obtained illegally cannot be admitted at trial.
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
If Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, than I’ll go with it. The perp had a warrant out for him when he was stopped. I imagine that legitimized the stop and negated any constitutional concerns.
I would like to know the reasoning of Justice Thomas, who is a strong Constitutionalist. I would wager his opinion is narrow, and this headline is a bit of hype.
Doesn’t sound like that was the case. It sounds like he was stopped without much of a reason, then discovered the marijuana stuff, and then discovered he had a warrant. IANAL and I did not read more on this case than this one article, so I could be wrong. But it sounds like the court is saying that if you stop someone for no reason but later find out there was a reason, then its OK. If that is how it went down, I don’t think I can support it (though my opinion matters nil). In this day and age, there are so many laws, everyone in the country is a criminal without even knowing it.
Yep. This is bad news for people with arrest warrants, and even then very few will be detained illegally.
About 2/3 of the camel already in the tent and you want more?
Typical libtard scare-mongering. If the CONSERVATIVE justices like Thomas is for it, it is GOOD. Don’t follow libtards.
a. What is an unconstitutional stop?
2. If Sotomayer doesn’t like the ruling, I tend to like it, pending more information.
I dont see how the stop was unconstitutional if the guy had a warrant out for him. If the cop deliberately stopped him b/c he knew who he was, there’d be no court case. Its like if you are stopped and the cops run your plates and id and they find a warrant on you, they can’t search your car? I’m touching the safety tree, you can’t tag me?
Police are always finding out that people they have detained or stopped have outstanding warrants.
If anyone on the court is anti-statist, it’s Justice Thomas.
He’s the best friend we have there and I’ll trust his judgement.
Uh, Thomas and Alito both supported it. Criminals, be aware.
Agreed.
“Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented from the opinion”
bwahahaha, this ruling is GOOD!
There’s ample reason to believe so -
L. Gordon Crovitz: You Commit Three Felonies a Day - WSJ
www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487044715045744389... Proxy Highlight
Sep 27, 2009 ... Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate calls his new book “Three Felonies a Day,” referring to the number of crimes he estimates..
RE: “In this day and age, there are so many laws, everyone in the country is a criminal without even knowing it.”
It doesn’t affect them, so what do they care?
Sounds like just more penumbras and emanations" to me.
I am inclined to agree, and I don’t believe the guilty should be readily freed by technicality.
For those interested, the following provides more detail on related exclusionary rules precedent and issues.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Exclusionary_Rule.aspx
RE: “If anyone on the court is anti-statist, it’s Justice Thomas.
He’s the best friend we have there and I’ll trust his judgement.”
Unless the person stopped is an illegal alien and they will let them go with a promise they will actually show up for court.
SCOTUS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.