A divided Supreme Court bolstered police powers on Monday, ruling that evidence of a crime in some cases may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.
The 5-3 decision drew heated dissents from liberal justices who warned that the outcome would encourage police to violate people’s rights.
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 him.
Police Detective Doug Fackrell arrested Strieff and routinely searched him, finding that he was carrying methamphetamine.
The case raised the question of whether the valid warrant outweighs the stop, which was illegal because Fackrell lacked any reasonable suspicion that Strieff had been violating the law. It was the court’s latest case that questions whether evidence should be thrown out of court because the police did something wrong or illegal that led to the discovery of the evidence.
Justice Clarence Thomas said for the court that the officer’s actions were not a flagrant violation of the law. “While Officer Fackrell’s decision to initiate the stop was mistaken, his conduct thereafter was lawful,” Thomas wrote.
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in dissent that the decision is a blow to constitutional rights.
“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.
In a portion of her opinion that expressed only her own views, Sotomayor also described the “humiliations” of unjustified police searches and said that “people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny.”
Justice Elena Kagan filed a separate dissent in which she said the ruling “creates unfortunate incentives for the police — indeed practically invites them to do what Fackrell did here.”
The fourth member of the court’s liberal wing, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined the four conservatives to form a majority on the eight-justice court.
The issue is especially significant, Sotomayor said, because “outstanding warrants are increasingly common.”
In one prominent example, the Justice Department’s 2015 report that faulted police practices in Ferguson, Missouri, found that 16,000 of Ferguson’s 21,000 residents had outstanding warrants.
Many of those outstanding warrants, like Strieff’s, are for unpaid traffic fines — penalties that would not result in jail time.
The argument made by Strieff’s supporters is that in places with so many outstanding warrants, officers have a good chance of randomly stopping someone who has not paid a fine for a minor infraction.
But Thomas, in his majority opinion, said that Fackrell’s “discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.”
The Associated Press contributed to this article.
This is the reason why the government creates thousands of obscure laws, many of which even the police are not aware of. Once there are so many laws, the odds are that all people can be charged with something illegal. And once they have you, they press further to find more serious things they can charge you with.
It’s out of control. Open your eyes people. The government is not your friend.
Sorry to disagree with you but what is out of control in this country is a Criminal element with no fear of penalty.
Sometimes, due to years of experience, cops probably have their internal radar go up when they see someone, and just sense that something isn’t right. We don’t want to constantly second guess their instincts, and possibly undermine safety by not respecting their ability to recognize signs of criminal behavior that the rest of us would overlook. While we want them to respect citizen’s rights, and follow laws and the Constitution regarding those rights, we also don’t want to tie their hands behind their backs in trying to do their jobs. It’s possible the SCOTUS is further promoting a police state and tyranny, but it’s also possible they are showing respect for police, and their efforts to maintain safety and FREEDOM. Without the police and the government, NO ONE would be free, as we would all be subject to the bullying of the biggest, meanest and best-armed among us. Women, elderly, and children in particular would be the most vulnerable to this ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality that would prevail if we didn’t have police. We can’t go overboard in either direction, but in general, we should all be THANKFUL for the police and BACK THE BLUE.
DJTX, in this time of militarized police departments, it is even more important that our civil rights are protected. All criminals and criminal activity should be legally prosecuted. However, our Constitutional Rights have to be protected. We are constantly losing our rights over government desires to completely control the citizens. and claims that it is for our “protection”. In my view, Law Enforcement must be required to follow the laws they are enforcing. We already have a Congress who don’t have to follow the laws they write. Let us not extend that error even further.
If an officer breaks the law in obtaining evidence that leads to an arrest and/or conviction, then the officer should by punished by the law. But the evidence should remain valid.
Winston N. Martin-
If an officer breaks the law in obtaining evidence that leads to an arrest and/or conviction, then the officer should by punished by the law. But the evidence should remain valid.
Are you sure?
Ok, let’s take scenario A. Bill is walking down the street, minding his own business. A cop cruiser slide on up on Bill, and the cop in the passenger seat says “Hey, you! Let’s see some ID!” Bill says “Look, i know my rights; what’s your reasonable, articulable suspicion for stopping me and demanding my ID?” Cop says, “Smartass, eh?” Car stops; both cops rush Bill, beat the shit out of him, then take him back to their jail to beat him some more, to make him confess to dealing drugs – even though they found NO drugs and had NO basis for suspecting drug possession, much less dealing.
However, during the beating and the background check, the cops discover that he has an unpaid parking ticket in the amount of fifty bux.
What you’re saying is that the cops should get arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sued(and lose their jobs and big money) – but the victim of the torture and beating still has to pay the fifty bux?
I really think that your idea merits looking at a letter in his jacket keeping him from getting a raise in money or position for a period of time or sent home with out pay for a specific time should be a national law same for ever one but u also have to look at the how bad he broke the
Law