The Supreme Court Just Ruled In Favor Of The Police State, And Sonia Sotomayor Is Not Having It

[G_j]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57680301e4b0fbbc8beaf4ae

She lashed out at “lawless police conduct” that disproportionately targets black and brown Americans.

WASHINGTON — In a powerful dissent to a Supreme Court ruling that took an expansive view of the limits the Constitution places on police misconduct, Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Monday seemed to address the people most affected by unfortunate encounters with the police — black and brown Americans.

“Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong,” Sotomayor wrote in the opening paragraph of her response to Utah v. Strieff, which the court decided in a 5-3 vote.

The case had asked the justices to decide whether evidence uncovered during an unlawful police stop could be used against the person in possession of it — a question that requires an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment‘s prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

It turns out that Edward Strieff, the Utah man at the center of the case, had been stopped by police officers who had a hunch that he was engaged in drug activity but didn’t have any real “reasonable suspicion” that he actually was, which is required by the Constitution for investigatory stops.

Or, as Sotomayor put it: “In his search for lawbreaking, the officer in this case himself broke the law.”

...more...

[DonCoquixote]

1. This supreme Court

Will go down in history as the wound that made our nation sick. If there is a Hell, may Tony Scaly be shoved into the furnace.

[longship]

2. More from Sotomayor:

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are “isolated.” They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.

Sage words, those.

R&K

[G_j]

4. indeed!

well stated..

[longship]

5. I had to look up the word "carceral".

And found out that Twitter is absolutely aglow with references to this Sotomayor quote. The word means "imprisoned".

An astounding quote, actually, to have that kind of social impact. Because the use of one word? Regardless, as long as her sage words have a life beyond the law journals.

[jtuck004]

3. Anonymous tip of a drug house, detective stopped this fella just because.

?

http://fox13now.com/2015/10/01/u-s-supreme-court-will-hear-utah-case-involving-drug-search/

...
The case will have broader implications than just what happened to Strieff, said Carissa Byrne Hessick, a University of Utah law professor. It will settle legal disputes over evidence and what can and cannot be used against you in court.

"We decide these cases involving the exclusionary rule, the courts tell us, in order to deter police from future misconduct," she told FOX 13. "That is to make it so they don't have an incentive to conduct illegal stops and illegal searches."

--------------------
Good. 'Cause we don't want the Stasi, which is what this would help bring.

[ancianita]

6. Too late. She's outvoted. We're screwed.