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 ...
Uh they put their pants on one leg at a time and are not necessarily infallible. ANYTHING that weakens individual protections is not a good thing. Ever hear of Blackstone's ratio (Better to have ten guilty go free than one innocent punished)?
If the cop knew BEFORE the search that there was an arrest warrant on the guy, AND arrested him, that is a search incident to a valid arrest, which has long been allowed.
It sounds like here the cop did a search without probable cause and without knowing that the guy had a warrant on him, then arrested him or cited him because of what the no-probable cause search found, and only THEN found out the guy had an arrest warrant out on him.
This is a close call, IMO.
Legitimate question to those here with related legal background -
Could this SCOTUS ruling make it easier execute warrantless - delayed notification searches against individuals and later “cook up” arrest charges based on initial evidence of data seized?
Know Your Rights | Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights Proxy Highlight
Oct 29, 2014 ... This sensitive data is worth protecting from prying eyes, including those of the ... If you consent to a search, the police don’t need a warrant. ... Police can search your computer or portable devices at the border without a warrant.
Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic ...
https://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ssma... Proxy Highlight
Seeking Authorization for Delayed Notification Search Warrants ...83. 6. Multiple ..... on the warrantless search and seizure of computers and computer data.
Uh, I trust the judgment of Thomas and Alito over you.
Perhaps you should mingle with Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. They agree with you.
Excellent presentation.
It’s likely Scalia would have concurred with Kagan and Sotomayor. He was very strong on 4th Amendment rights and regularly sided with the liberals and against the conservatives. That’s why Kagan respected him.
“The discovery of that warrant broke the causal chain between the unconstitutional stop and the discovery of evidence by compelling Officer Douglas Fackrell to arrest Strieff,” Thomas wrote. “And, it is especially significant that there is no evidence that Officer Fackrell’s illegal stop reflected flagrantly unlawful police misconduct.”
The Fourth Amendment protects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. Thomas is saying that regardless of the unreasonable stop, the police had a duty to arrest the guy based on an outstanding warrant which adds up to a reasonable search in the arrest. That seems like a reasonable conclusion. Sometimes it helps who is for and who is against. Thomas usually hits the nail on the head and the Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent gives the decision more credibility IMO.
The search was BEFORE discovery of an outstanding arrest warrant? Sounds like Thomas is saying the search was reasonable because it was AFTER the arrest.
“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.”
Uh, no, this does NOT reverse that decision. It was the court’s opinion that the “exclusionary rule” was not applicable because of the facts IN THIS CASE.
Writers should stick to writing about things they understand and/or have no prejudice against.
The “exclusionary rule” in many cases, disallows evidence that was simply not presented properly or logged in and/or described wrong. Crazy reasons, many of them, which is how we get guys running around with 43 arrests, 4 felony convictions and who knows how many other acts of thuggery that were unable to be prosecuted because someone didn’t dot an I or cross a t.
Thank you both for reviewing and providing valuable points for consideration.
Can not help to be increasing suspicious of gov’t ruling as we become evermore unconstitutionally governed.
“It’s likely Scalia would have concurred with Kagan and Sotomayor. “
LOL, sure if you say so.
They really didn’t weaken it. What it boils down to is if you’ve got an outstanding warrant why they initially stopped you becomes immaterial. Which makes sense really, technically once you’ve got a warrant out for your arrest all cops are supposed to be looking for you and can stop you merely because you’re you and you’ve got a warrant.
Not really. He may be the best of this bunch, but he reliably sides with authority.
Don’t blame you there.
What really needs to happen is the general citizenry becoming more familiar with THEIR Constitution by learning its 1) PRESUMPTIONS 2) STRUCTURAL doctrines 3) actual TEXT and 4) post-1900 PERVERTED PRESUMPTIONS.
“Better to have ten guilty go free than one innocent punished”
Uh, the premise is wrong. You can walk and chew gum. I would rather 10 murderers behind bar/sentenced to death AND innocents not be in jail in the first place. Those who are “wrongly” convicted got the raw end of the deal due to their/their lawyers’ incompetence. If there is malice involved, prosecute those who fabricated evidence. Simple.
But why was he stopped? No one has said. Was his driving erratic, was something about his vehicle suspicious? It’s not too difficult to come up with a pretense if you have a good cop’s instinct that the subject just seems a little hinky.
I’ve had very few tickets in over 50 years of driving and I chock that up to being able to spot police cars. They have an “aura” that I can’t explain but nine times out of ten I’m right. I expect a cop develops that same sense about certain cars that he believes may be driven by bad actors, and I’d bet he has a pretty high percentage of being right.
You hit the nail on the head. We have too many laws. There is not way citizens can keep track of all of them. There is no way police can enforce all of them.
So the police are in a position to pick which they will enforce.
Hate crimes is an example. Nobody commits murder, rape, assault or even vandalism out of love or respect. It is always out of hate/evil motives. To make hate an additional crime is going too far.
Take identity group laws. Pre-60s a murder was murder of 1st or 2d degree or manslaughter based solely on the extent of pre-meditation and other aspects of the accused. But starting in the 60s we created special classes of victims. Killing the President, or killing a policeman was more heinous than killing a kid in the Pulse or a kid on Chicago’s Southside.
By law society said that the life of a kid on the southside is worth less than the life of a polic officer. Then we wonder why we have the mess we have.
Of course, these are just isolated examples of a genderal decay into identity police work that holds a person more..or less... guilty .. or innocent based on his identity group.
At first, society thought identity group politics made sense. Allegedly it made sense to treat police special. But now we have the bounce back of identity politics where the life of a criminal is now more valued than that of the police.
In the 60s and 70s that bounce-back was predicted by many of us, most notably libertarians like John Hosper. But also by many commonsense analysts.
We need to remove many laws.
Well, I took the bold and daring step of actually reading part of the opinion. Clever, huh?
You are right that the search took place after the cop had stopped the guy and found out he had an arrest warrant out on him. At that point the search was a search incident to a valid arrest, for which no separate search warrant is needed.
And Sometimes, on rare occasions, Breyer is reasonable in our view.
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.