FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/20/2016 10:36:30 AM PDT by Wolfie
Supreme Court Rules for Police in Search Case
he Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.
The justices voted 5-3 to reinstate the drug-related convictions of a Utah man.
The ruling comes in a case in which a police detective illegally stopped defendant Joseph Edward Strieff on the streets of South Salt Lake City, Utah. A name check revealed an outstanding warrant for Strieff.
Strieff was placed under arrest and searched. He was carrying methamphetamine.
Justice Clarence Thomas said for the court that the officer's actions were not a flagrant violation of the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
“Illegally stopped”?
Perhaps no probable cause but thats just a guess.
Justice Clarence Thomas said for the court that the officer’s actions were not a flagrant violation of the law.
...
This reminds me of a similar case. I think it was in NC and involved an inoperative taillight. As long as it’s an honest mistake, the arrest isn’t going to be thrown out.
Law enforcement has no right to just stop you on the street randomly. They have to have evidence of a crime or that you’re suspected of a crime. If, however, you offer up your credentials, shame on you.
“Am I being detained, or am I free to go?”
“The discovery of that warrant broke the causal chain between the unconstitutional stop and the discovery of evidence by compelling Officer Fackrell to arrest Strieff. And, it is especially significant that there is no evidence that Officer Fackrell’s illegal stop reflected flagrantly unlawful police misconduct,” Justice Thomas wrote.
“Am I being detained, or am I free to go?”
...
Good advice, but the SCOTUS is ruling that the discovery of the warrant meant he was no longer free to go. Although, they apparently agree that there wasn’t enough cause for a temporary detention.
And that was after the perp provided his information. Had he remained silent, completely his right to do, the officers wouldn’t have discovered his identity. Or did I misread this?
lovely
Honestly, I don’t think people will get it, but I’m glad somebody does. Of course, once they start ringing people up for stuff other than drugs, the light will go on.
How disgusting (and most disappointing coming from Thomas). It's ok for LE to be unlawful, as long as it is not "flagrant". Doesn't seem to be the same for us peasants.
The police were under the impression that it was a legal detention, so they probably would have arrested him had he remained silent, which is his right. He could have said he wanted a lawyer, but I imagine he still would have been arrested, and in any case they would have discovered the warrant.
I think the lesson here is your rights aren’t going to keep you out of jail when there’s a warrant for your arrest. However, if this officer in the future was to make the same mistake or if his PD was to do the same, the next defense lawyer can argue that it’s flagrant.
As a general principle, since the Rehnquist court, the Supreme Court has rolled back a lot of the damage that the Warren court did regarding criminal procedure. Earl Warren and his gang unleashed a wave of crime across America that took decades to correct. It may not seem so to the non-trained lawyer, but the days of getting off free on technicalities are mostly gone.
As a general principle, since the Rehnquist court, the Supreme Court has rolled back a lot of the damage that the Warren court did regarding criminal procedure. Earl Warren and his gang unleashed a wave of crime across America that took decades to correct.
...
Uncle Barry is doing his best to get the crime wave moving again.
SCOTUS.
There was no new ground broken or new line crossed here. As an old and wise Public Defender once told me, “If you can limit yourself to one felony at a time, you probably won’t do much time.”
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.