The single holdout should be removed from the court. This is a simple case of probable cause.
But what if the single holdout is a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences who would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male?
Obama’s appointee, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented, saying the majority opinion misapplied prior Supreme Court search-and-seizure rulings in a manner that “unnecessarily reduces the state’s burden of proof.”
“The consequence of the majority’s approach is to absolve officers from any responsibility to investigate the identity of a driver where feasible,” Sotomayor wrote. “But that is precisely what officers ought to do — and are more than capable of doing.
But some legal experts said the ruling did not mark a dramatic shift in the justices’ approach to search-and-seizure cases. “It’s a straightforward decision that doesn’t break new theoretical ground,” said Orrin Kerr, a law professor at the University of California Berkeley.
The opinion in this case, Kansas v. Glover, reverses and remands a decision by the Kansas Supreme Court that found the officer had stopped Glover without reasonable suspicion.
“Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, saying the majority opinion misapplied prior Supreme Court search-and-seizure rulings in a manner that “unnecessarily reduces the state’s burden of proof.”
There ya go. No surprise I imagine.
The article contains insufficient information to form an opinion either way.
There is no information on whether the officer had PC to run the plate to begin with.
We can presume that the officer had PC to run the license plate and, consequently, the owner’s file...
...that we can only “presume” without reading the SCOTUS decision in detail is the nature of the problem. The Hill article is derelict in that respect.