SC 4th Amendment Decision

[werepossum]

Thank you for actually discussing the legal issues here, although I do not believe that your conclusion is correct.

There is a good bit of discussion about the purpose and flagrancy of the stop, which is relevant.

For example:

The proposed conduct you are responding to would be flagrant, illegal, and expose police to civil liability. Understanding this and reasonable suspicion in this case is very important to understanding our rights. Even if a stop is deemed illegal by the court, we ought to have more discussion about what makes it illegal and how that changes (or should or should not) what happens subsequently.

Again, I do not believe this to be the case. Such an arrest cannot stick unless there is an attenuating factor for the illegal stop. In this case, it's the arrest warrant. Another example might be a man illegally stopped then pulling a gun on the cop. The cop has PC then to arrest the person and those charges will stick, including possession charges for illegal drugs found on searching the man after the arrest despite the initial stop being illegal.

I agree that there is quite a difference in possession of drugs and other products of searches in this case, and it may mean that the standard for exclusion should be tighter.

That first is a valid point. I need to change my statement from "they can freely stop them all" to "they can freely stop any of them." If they stopped all of them, it would clearly be systemic abuse, but anyone can be stopped for a cause later found to be invalid.

For the second, the arrest warrant attenuates the connection between the illegal stop and the evidence found - it's like a fresh start. Due to a combination of an overreaching, even evil local government bent on mining its citizens for cash and a citizenry lacking in both respect for government's laws and resources to combat it, 3/4 of the citizens of Ferguson had outstanding warrants. Therefore the cops automatically had that same attenuating factor for 3/4 of the citizens of Ferguson. Those odds would scarcely make a cop cautious about having a valid reason to pull someone over, since statistically 3/4 of the time, they could use anything incriminating they found.

EDIT: I should add that the 3/4 figure is a gross exaggeration based on the number of outstanding warrants versus population. In reality, many people had multiple outstanding warrants and some were for non-residents, so the percentage of individuals with outstanding warrants was not anywhere near 75%. However, for purposes of principle it can stand.

 

[Darwin333]

In some areas, Ferguson comes to mind, where a high percentage of the population has outstanding warrants the police can effectively stop anyone at any time. In Ferguson before the justice dept cleaned house I think 75% of the citizens had outstanding warrants. So police would have been able to freely stop 3 out of 4 for no reason at all.

What is really crazy is that you can ask any officer and they will tell you that they can follow ANYONE for 3 or 4 minutes and find a reason to pull them over. Hell a lot will just flat out lie and say you broke some traffic violation. My point being is that they didn't even need this ruling to go in their favor, at least not for traffic stops.

 

[werepossum]

LOL @ "editorializing." So we now have license to play fast and loose with the facts because reasons...

My correction was hardly a nitpick. There is a large difference between anything on someone's prior record - including a parking ticket - and a current, outstanding warrant. I think it was entirely fair for me to point that out. Don't be so thin skinned.

I agree that it was entirely fair for you to point that out, but I think Jackstar has a point because the evidence of the crime for which he was convicted was so lightweight as to make pretty much everything fair game. Seems to me that the Court more or less said don't worry about the illegal search, as long as you find anything it'll be forgiven.

I don't have a great deal of heartburn about cops stopping people when they believe they have probable cause. I'm just saying that if legally they didn't have probable cause, then the bar to use anything they find should be very high. Obviously this doesn't mean don't bring the guy in if he's wanted, but beyond that, for the Fourth Amendment to grant any protection at all, the exclusion attenuation must be set VERY high. I don't think an outstanding arrest warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket comes anywhere near a reasonable value for attenuation, and I don't think that what the officer found (drugs and paraphernalia) comes anywhere near a reasonable value for attenuation. When we set the bar this low, we greatly weaken our Fourth Amendment rights in my opinion.

 

[Darwin333]

Can you make that argument?

I kind of agree with Glen here, despite thinking this ruling is total garbage. Once a cop knows for a fact that you have an outstanding warrant for your arrest, regardless of all other circumstances, it's kind of hard to argue they should just let you go.

 

[werepossum]

I kind of agree with Glen here, despite thinking this ruling is total garbage. Once a cop knows for a fact that you have an outstanding warrant for your arrest, regardless of all other circumstances, it's kind of hard to argue they should just let you go.

Agreed. But wouldn't you also agree that the bar for admitting evidence for any new, fresh charges resulting from that illegal stop should be very high? The effect on society of not convicting a guilty methhead surely pales compared to the effect on society of watering down Constitutional rights.

 

[Brainonska511]

I kind of agree with Glen here, despite thinking this ruling is total garbage. Once a cop knows for a fact that you have an outstanding warrant for your arrest, regardless of all other circumstances, it's kind of hard to argue they should just let you go.

I kind of agree with that. You can't just let the person go once the warrant is discovered. However, as werepossum just wrote, the bar should be very high for bringing about new charges for evidence discovered due to an illegal stop.

My big issue here is there becomes very little disincentive for making illegal stops.

 

[Moonbeam]

I kind of agree with that. You can't just let the person go once the warrant is discovered. However, as werepossum just wrote, the bar should be very high for bringing about new charges for evidence discovered due to an illegal stop.

Why not? All that would happen is that a person with a traffic warrant would be returned to his previous wanted status. Is he wanted for a crime or wanted for a fine? Have you ever let your license laps and noticed you drive more carefully?

 

[interchange]

Cliff notes version for the ADD crowd:

Cops can now legally stop and question you for absolutely no reason. Anything they find during these (baseless) searches can now be used for evidence.

Papers, please.

I don't find this to be consistent with my reading of the supreme court decision at all.

Evidence may be admissible if gathered from a detainment that was found not to have reasonable suspicion if:
1. the detainment was not flagrant
2. there is a factor that attenuates the improper detainment (in this case, the existence of a valid arrest warrant)
3. the cost of excluding the evidence outweighs the benefit of exclusion in deterring future illegal detainments

Further, the court explicitly states that systematically illegally stopping citizens for no valid reason for the purpose of finding an attenuating factor (such as warrant) would be flagrant and expose the police department to civil liability.

 

[interchange]

M: I guess I just supposed that such a faith had to exist for there to be a will to also exist to adequately challenge one's understanding. I suppose that is natural for me because I believe that the greater the understanding the greater the justice rendered. They say like calls to like.

I never said you were wrong. Just found it interesting that you came to that conclusion.

M: Well, however desperate the situation we face may be, as long as there are people like you who value understanding, I will choose to be optimistic.

Who knows. Perhaps it is catching.

I hope you're right.

 

[interchange]

no shit. why are you guys arguing if it was legal or not. EVERYONE dealing with the court case from the State to the SUPREME COURT agree that it was a illegal stop.

god damn.

I find it interesting that the basis of this thread is on disagreement or at least controversy of a supreme court ruling on the 4th amendment.

And when asked to help understand what makes the initial detainment legal or illegal, it is met with, instead of any reasoned argument, deference to that very authority whose ruling is being challenged.

Due to the consensus on insufficiency in standard of reasonable suspicion from the court parties, I suspect there is little statutory controversy here.

It is clear, however, that the officer who detained the suspect did feel that there was reasonable suspicion.

It is also clear that no one here has articulated any grounds on which this detainment was legal or not aside from deference to the courts.

Even though the legality of the detainment was not the issue on which the supreme court ruled, it is prudent for us to understand and discuss the grounds on which we may be legally or illegally detained. And, even if there is clarity in the law / court interpretation of it, we are not obligated to agree with this component of it. I would very much like to hear how people feel such things ought to work and why.

 

[Moonbeam]

I find it interesting that the basis of this thread is on disagreement or at least controversy of a supreme court ruling on the 4th amendment.

And when asked to help understand what makes the initial detainment legal or illegal, it is met with, instead of any reasoned argument, deference to that very authority whose ruling is being challenged.

Due to the consensus on insufficiency in standard of reasonable suspicion from the court parties, I suspect there is little statutory controversy here.

It is clear, however, that the officer who detained the suspect did feel that there was reasonable suspicion.

It is also clear that no one here has articulated any grounds on which this detainment was legal or not aside from deference to the courts.

Even though the legality of the detainment was not the issue on which the supreme court ruled, it is prudent for us to understand and discuss the grounds on which we may be legally or illegally detained. And, even if there is clarity in the law / court interpretation of it, we are not obligated to agree with this component of it. I would very much like to hear how people feel such things ought to work and why.

I come back to what I first said. Do I feel that the officer was acting out of good police instincts and street wise acquired knowledge in the service of the law, or do I feel the policeman's ethical standards wanting? Am I inclined to trust or doubt the police? Do I know why? Do I believe in my bias or do I question it's validity? Will I destroy myself if I judge?

By the way, did you get the personal message I sent the other day?

 

[woolfe9998]

I agree that it was entirely fair for you to point that out, but I think Jackstar has a point because the evidence of the crime for which he was convicted was so lightweight as to make pretty much everything fair game. Seems to me that the Court more or less said don't worry about the illegal search, as long as you find anything it'll be forgiven.

I don't have a great deal of heartburn about cops stopping people when they believe they have probable cause. I'm just saying that if legally they didn't have probable cause, then the bar to use anything they find should be very high. Obviously this doesn't mean don't bring the guy in if he's wanted, but beyond that, for the Fourth Amendment to grant any protection at all, the exclusion attenuation must be set VERY high. I don't think an outstanding arrest warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket comes anywhere near a reasonable value for attenuation, and I don't think that what the officer found (drugs and paraphernalia) comes anywhere near a reasonable value for attenuation. When we set the bar this low, we greatly weaken our Fourth Amendment rights in my opinion.

I agree with you. Were I on the court, I would have voted with the dissent. However, my focus is always first to get the facts straight and avoid hyperbole. Interchange explained the ruling accurately above in post #58, so I need not repeat it. The fact is this was not a victory for the 4th Amendment but it wasn't anywhere near the death knell of it either.

The SCOTUS' decisions on the 4th amendment can go either way. In one case, they say when the police put a GPS tracker on the outside of a car that it is a search which requires probable cause and a warrant. In another, we get this holding.

The honest truth is that many of our Constitutional rights were not well enforced prior to the Warren court era in the 60's. It was even a crime to criticize the POTUS or Congress in 1800. In the distant past, we had less rights than we do now. I'm just trying to keep things in perspective.

 

[interchange]

I come back to what I first said. Do I feel that the officer was acting out of good police instincts and street wise acquired knowledge in the service of the law, or do I feel the policeman's ethical standards wanting? Am I inclined to trust or doubt the police? Do I know why? Do I believe in my bias or do I question it's validity? Will I destroy myself if I judge?

But Moonbeam! How can I reject my dependence on my overlords if I demonstrate faith in them? That's impossible! Everyone gnows that.

By the way, did you get the personal message I sent the other day?

Yeah. Have to chew on what you said more.

 

[Jaskalas]

Please read the opinion. The Supreme Court said that it was an illegal stop. The prosecutor admitted that it was an illegal stop. On appeal, the State conceded that it was an illegal stop.

Everybody involved in the case agreed that it was an illegal stop. The point of contention was whether "the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest."

SCOTUS
Assuming, without deciding, that Officer Fackrell lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Strieff initially...

The police simply ignored the LEGAL stop because it might be questioned. The arrest warrant was a superior item to focus and hang the case on. So they simply pushed aside the softer ground for an absolute verdict in their favor.

The SCOTUS never decided on the stop.
But they did say this:

SCOTUS
This was not a suspicionless fishing expedition “in the hope that something would turn up.”
Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U. S. 687, 691 (1982).

SCOTUS
Neither the officer’s alleged purpose nor the flagrancy of the violation rise to a level of misconduct to warrant suppression.

Tip -> House -> Suspect -> Drugs.
It couldn't be clearer that it was a legal search from start to end, and I have heard no reasoning otherwise. Appeals to authority are either not what you claim they are, or not wanted for this purpose.

I say it was a legal stop because an informant gave them CORRECT information and the police acted on it.
You say it was an illegal stop, I'd like to know WHY?

 

[werepossum]

I agree with you. Were I on the court, I would have voted with the dissent. However, my focus is always first to get the facts straight and avoid hyperbole. Interchange explained the ruling accurately above in post #58, so I need not repeat it. The fact is this was not a victory for the 4th Amendment but it wasn't anywhere near the death knell of it either.

The SCOTUS' decisions on the 4th amendment can go either way. In one case, they say when the police put a GPS tracker on the outside of a car that it is a search which requires probable cause and a warrant. In another, we get this holding.

The honest truth is that many of our Constitutional rights were not well enforced prior to the Warren court era in the 60's. It was even a crime to criticize the POTUS or Congress in 1800. In the distant past, we had less rights than we do now. I'm just trying to keep things in perspective.

Good points, and thanks for sharing your legal expertise.

The police simply ignored the LEGAL stop because it might be questioned. The arrest warrant was a superior item to focus and hang the case on. So they simply pushed aside the softer ground for an absolute verdict in their favor.

The SCOTUS never decided on the stop.
But they did say this:




Tip -> House -> Suspect -> Drugs.
It couldn't be clearer that it was a legal search from start to end, and I have heard no reasoning otherwise. Appeals to authority are either not what you claim they are, or not wanted for this purpose.

I say it was a legal stop because an informant gave them CORRECT information and the police acted on it.
You say it was an illegal stop, I'd like to know WHY?

Hmm, also good points. For myself, I had no major problem with the stop except for this: His reasoning was that many people were making very brief visits, which was consistent with his informant's information, BUT as he did not see Strieff's arrival, he had no way of knowing whether Strieff's visit matched that pattern.

And in any case, Thomas wrote the majority opinion and said:

“The outstanding arrest warrant for Strieff ’s arrest is a critical intervening circumstance that is wholly independent of the illegal stop,” Thomas wrote. “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.”

(Bolding mine.)

To me, that seems pretty conclusive that SCOTUS' majority agreed that the stop was illegal, the Utah court did not defend its legality, and certainly SCOTUS' dissenting minority agreed that the stop was illegal.

 

[Venix]

The police simply ignored the LEGAL stop because it might be questioned. The arrest warrant was a superior item to focus and hang the case on. So they simply pushed aside the softer ground for an absolute verdict in their favor.

The SCOTUS never decided on the stop.
But they did say this:




Tip -> House -> Suspect -> Drugs.
It couldn't be clearer that it was a legal search from start to end, and I have heard no reasoning otherwise. Appeals to authority are either not what you claim they are, or not wanted for this purpose.

I say it was a legal stop because an informant gave them CORRECT information and the police acted on it.
You say it was an illegal stop, I'd like to know WHY?

Again, please read the opinion:

In evaluating these factors, we assume without deciding (because the State conceded the point) that Officer Fackrell lacked reasonable suspicion to initially stop Strieff.

The Supreme Court didn't decide the legality of the stop because the State already agreed that it was illegal. This is not unusual; the Court does not decide points that aren't contested.

The Court repeatedly calls the stop "unconstitutional" and "unlawful." The State agrees that the stop was illegal. The Utah Supreme Court suppressed the evidence because the stop was illegal. The stop was illegal.

 

[PokerGuy]

Some good clarification in this thread. I'm uncomfortable with the conclusion reached by the majority in the ruling that the fruits from the (admittedly) poisoned tree (the evidence that was found after an illegal stop) is still admissible.

That said, Sotomayor in her dissent just rants like an idiot SJW. A little about law and a whole lot of rambling on about brown people. In principle I don't agree with the majority on this one, but sotomayor's dissent pushes me more towards agreeing with the majority.

 

[Venix]

dp

 

[jackstar7]

Some good clarification in this thread. I'm uncomfortable with the conclusion reached by the majority in the ruling that the fruits from the (admittedly) poisoned tree (the evidence that was found after an illegal stop) is still admissible.

That said, Sotomayor in her dissent just rants like an idiot SJW. A little about law and a whole lot of rambling on about brown people. In principle I don't agree with the majority on this one, but sotomayor's dissent pushes me more towards agreeing with the majority.

Ha!

I'm loving the adoption of 'SJW' so widely. It really is a shortcut to let people know who you are.

 

[lopri]

That the initial stop was illegal is stipulated by both the majority and the dissents, meaning it is a given. Question is whether the subsequent search, after finding an outstanding warrant, was constitutionally permitted.

This ruling allows fishing expedition by the police. I do not think that can be right under the 4th Amendment.

 

[glenn1]

That the initial stop was illegal is stipulated by both the majority and the dissents, meaning it is a given. Question is whether the subsequent search, after finding an outstanding warrant, was constitutionally permitted.

This ruling allows fishing expedition by the police. I do not think that can be right under the 4th Amendment.

The search itself was fine, when taking someone into custody for an outstanding arrest warrant you can't simply plop them in front of the judge with their .32 pistol still in the waistband and dirty crack needle in their sock. What you shouldn't do (and IMHO the court got wrong) is use the findings of the search for contraband as the basis of a new set of criminal charges. And unless the dude had several kilos of coke stuffed down his pants I can't see why the state thought it so important for this case to be resolved by SCOTUS, for what so you could give the guy a misdemeanor for carrying around a dime bag?

 

[lopri]

^ You are right that it is about admissability of the fruit of that search. I stand corrected.

 

[Moonbeam]

But Moonbeam! How can I reject my dependence on my overlords if I demonstrate faith in them? That's impossible! Everyone gnows that.




Yeah. Have to chew on what you said more.

The contradiction you pointed out was very amusing, one I hadn't noticed and found most interesting. I discussed it with my friend, LunarRay who will not post here anymore because all he ever sees is people who know nothing but are full of opinion. He came to that conclusion in part because he has engaged in a deep study of the Supreme court and the Law and, and like you, has been credited by those entitled to accredit such things as a genuine expert in economics, to the level of PhD, and has I believe five other degrees as well. He is also a Nam vet who suffers numerous forms of neurological damage from our brilliant use of Agent Orange. We spent a couple of hours last night discussing this case.

The phenomenal thing I can't quite wrap my head around is that the law is what the Supreme court says it is, that as a jury member one is sworn to uphold the law as the courts say it is, not what ones inner conscience says it should be, or what ones personal bias wishes to distort it to mean. I need no longer worry about jury duty because I understand now that I could never take such an oath. I know for example that money is not speech and corporations are not people.

Anyway, glad you got the PM. Just wanted to be sure you actually did see the post. I wasn't looking for a response. That's cool too if you wish to.

 

[Moonbeam]

That the initial stop was illegal is stipulated by both the majority and the dissents, meaning it is a given. Question is whether the subsequent search, after finding an outstanding warrant, was constitutionally permitted.

This ruling allows fishing expedition by the police. I do not think that can be right under the 4th Amendment.

Wasn't the decision written in such a manner that a fishing expedition would not be accorded the same permission? Surely, for example, the police can't now beat a confession out of suspects and use evidence acquired by that in court against them.

 

[Moonbeam]

The search itself was fine, when taking someone into custody for an outstanding arrest warrant you can't simply plop them in front of the judge with their .32 pistol still in the waistband and dirty crack needle in their sock. What you shouldn't do (and IMHO the court got wrong) is use the findings of the search for contraband as the basis of a new set of criminal charges. And unless the dude had several kilos of coke stuffed down his pants I can't see why the state thought it so important for this case to be resolved by SCOTUS, for what so you could give the guy a misdemeanor for carrying around a dime bag?

I thought that what was on the scales of balance here was not the degree of criminality of the defendant, but the degree of violation committed by the policeman, that the fact that he was in violation of the defendant's rights did not rise to such a degree of severity as to warrant the cancelation of the findings of evidence. I could be wrong. I am not sure.