Supreme Court rules for police in search case
Source: AP
The 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.
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/1ef09db1314f4d749a574b3dcb3e5871
The most important part.
"The 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."
Crazy stuff!
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)I cannot believe it was a 5-3 decision. Mr Justice Breyer has some 'splainin to do.
-- Mal
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)malthaussen
(17,066 posts)... disagree so far, but I'm not a Justice. However, the fact that there was already an outstanding warrant on Strieff does pertain. But ultimately, isn't his arrest then dependent on the outstanding warrant and not the tainted evidence?
Pretty divisive ruling. I see only Ginsburg agrees with Sotomeyer's dissent, and only with 3/4 of that, while Kagen and Ginsburg combined for their own dissent. Somebody really doesn't trust the cops much, eh?
-- Mal
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)If the police tried this with someone who doesnt have a warrant the evidence will still likely be suppressed.
Tikki
(14,537 posts)but it's OK now, I see.
Tikki
midnight
(26,624 posts)asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)From scotusblog -
Wow - Part IV of Sotomayor's dissent is amazing: "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
So, how does this affect the case against Arpaio in AZ - papers please..
Are you kidding me?????
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)malthaussen
(17,066 posts)Even Ginsburg wouldn't add her name to part IV of that dissent.
I've felt that way about "stop and frisk" since it was initiated.
-- Mal
ananda
(28,782 posts)This is policy for a police state, not a free republic.
vdogg
(1,384 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:13 PM - Edit history (1)
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)The decision is that the "intervening circumstance" of a prior, valid arrest warrant for Strieff outweighs the damage done to the Fourth Amendment. The dissents are much more interesting than Mr Justice Thomas's decision.
-- Mal
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Any cop who does in fact break the law in order to obtain any evidence should be charged with and prosecuted for that illegality also...
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)A cop, getting "charged with and prosecuted" for an "illegality" that infringes on the rights of a regular, poor, probably-criminal-anyway citizen? Quit with the jokes; you're killing me!
This decision...
k&r,
-app
CincyDem
(6,282 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)There is longstanding jurisprudence on the exclusionary rule, so that would be a major departure. Very bad coverage at source.
treestar
(82,383 posts)malthaussen
(17,066 posts)Sotomayer appears to be a little peeved.
-- Mal
treestar
(82,383 posts)Looks like Thomas wrote one on his own.
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)I wondered if Roberts passed it to him because the Chief Justice didn't see it as all that important a question.
Certainly I wouldn't want Thomas to write a decision on a parking ticket.
-- Mal
treestar
(82,383 posts)Facts of the case
Utah Detective Douglas Fackrell received an anonymous tip about drug sales in a South Salt Lake residence, so he surveyed the area over a short period of time and speculated there was drug activity taking place. Fackrell saw Edward Joseph Strieff, Jr. leaving the residence and stopped him for questioning. During the stop, Fackrell discovered Strieff had an outstanding warrant and arrested him. During the lawful search after his arrest, Fackrell found methamphetamine and a drug pipe on Strieffs person. The district court ruled that, although Fackrell did not have enough evidence to conduct an investigatory stop, the methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia obtained during the lawful search incident to arrest justified the admission of that evidence for trial. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district courts ruling, but the Utah Supreme Court reversed and held that the evidence should have been suppressed because the warrant that was the basis for the arrest was discovered during an unlawful investigatory stop.
Question
Should evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest on an outstanding warrant be suppressed because the warrant was discovered during an investigatory stop later found to be unlawful?
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Also with the information the officer had while watching the house could have lead to a proper investigation that probably would have been more beneficial in the long run.
7962
(11,841 posts)He watches a residence & believes there is drug activity taking place. Likely, a lot of cars coming and going without staying more than a few minutes. So he pulls over one of the people leaving the residence. hey, the guy has drugs + a warrant.
That actually sounds like its legal to me.
I've managed properties for many years, some in "questionable" areas, and thats pretty much what the cops do. If they see a lot of traffic they're gonna bust it.
Your logic allows an end run around probable cause. The police can sit outside and eyeball anything they want. So they are watching a house or whatever and a person comes out and they say, Oops, we're watching this house because (fill in blank), here comes Joe Whosits, he could be doing (fill in blank), let's just stop him and see what comes up.
To me, the poison tree in this case is the original stop, from which a "legal search" could not arise.
NoMoreRepugs
(9,260 posts)there's an outstanding warrant, something illegal in that person's possession or inside their car... etc.???
7962
(11,841 posts)See my post above. This wasnt some random stop. I think there are likely much better cases out there to bring this issue back up
NoMoreRepugs
(9,260 posts)when he made the stop? Because he sure didn't know for 100% positive that he would find something wrong - to me that's a 'what if' scenario - I understand in this case it happened to be a correct assumption. Isn't it similar to the NYC 'stop and frisk'
fiasco? Or is my memory really getting worse with age
7962
(11,841 posts)If no stops are allowed unless there is no doubt, then there would be NO stops allowed.
If you're leaving a house that is being watched by the cops and they believe drugs are being sold or whatever, it seems reasonable to stop someone coming from that house. Now to go inside the house they should have to get a warrant.
Stop & frisk was much more vague.
NoMoreRepugs
(9,260 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:49 AM - Edit history (1)
The particular instance in question was being watched because of a suspicion of nefarious (love that word) activity being conducted there - apparently not KNOWLEDGE of such. Subjective nature of that suspicion opens a can of worms that for me would seem to lead to the individual officers judgment being the deciding factor - I think way above their pay grade. Someone going 80 in a 45 or handing money to someone on the street in exchange for a small bag witnessed by the officer eliminates the decision making process for the officer in question.
maybe this will help to understand the convoluted point I am trying to make...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sonia-sotomayor-police_us_57680301e4b0fbbc8beaf4ae?section=
Javaman
(62,439 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)The War on Certain Terror likes to dig it up and re-kill it now and then.
7962
(11,841 posts)Javaman
(62,439 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Else you might flush evidence away while they knock and say "please let us in".
Javaman
(62,439 posts)sarisataka
(18,216 posts)Makes it sound like the standard for police is 'the end justifies the means'.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Where the police have the ultimate rights over WE THE PEOPLE!
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)"The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer's violation of your Fourth Amendment rights," Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Elena Kagan filed a separate dissent.
An unpaid parking ticket is a crime? Major felony, I guess it justifies a full body cavity search. I better go back and pay all my old college parking tickets otherwise I can skip the co-pay on my colonoscopy.
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)very well make an entirely different ruling.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)At least they didn't say anything about that most important 2nd.
JustinL
(722 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)to stop you for any reason and kick down your door for any reason. The walls built into the Constitution to guarantee our liberty have been rubbled by rulers who wish to be monarchs and a cowardly, gullible populace.