SC 4th Amendment Decision

[Moonbeam]

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

Quote:
“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.”

We know the events followed a sequence in time. How does saying that an event broke a sequence actually create anything but an intellectual decision to create a break that can't in fact actually exist since in reality one thing caused the next to happen. Can the naming of a break actually create one? Isn't this just creating an imaginary world in which the conclusions you want to make can happen as you wish them to? Without the illegal stop the rest would not have happened. This seems to me to be indisputable.

Just before the assassin I hired to kill my neighbor actually killed him I decided to call him to cancel the hit, but my cell phone battery was dead. This however caused a break in the fact the hit was the result of premeditation. I had changed my intention.

 

[interchange]

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 words "fishing expedition" were used in the ruling in stating what the stop, though illegal, was not. A "fishing expedition" would be flagrant by their ruling.

Thus, the ruling explicitly protects against fishing expeditions. As you say, allowing them would not be right under the 4th amendment.

 

[JEDI]

Judge Clarence Thomas, who wrote for the majority, said although the initial stop had no basis and was illegal, but the outstanding warrant for his arrest was enforceable.


what happened to fruit from a poisoned tree??

if the cop never stopped him because he didn't have cause, then he wouldn't have known who he was.
and he wouldn't have run the background check, which revealed the warrant.

 

[PokerGuy]

Judge Clarence Thomas, who wrote for the majority, said although the initial stop had no basis and was illegal, but the outstanding warrant for his arrest was enforceable.


what happened to fruit from a poisoned tree??

if the cop never stopped him because he didn't have cause, then he wouldn't have known who he was.
and he wouldn't have run the background check, which revealed the warrant.

Everyone agrees the stop itself was illegal. However, the fact that the warrant existed isn't affected by the stop itself, and the arrest and search were the result of the (valid) prior warrant. The justices are arguing that the contraband was in fact not fruit from the poisoned tree, but rather fruit of the search/arrest related to the warrant. The fact that all those actions occurred after (or as a result of) an illegal stop isn't sufficient grounds to disallow what they found while arresting for the warrant.

I am highly skeptical of that logic, it is a yuuuge loophole for abuse. However, the court did make it clear that "fishing expeditions", where there's a BS (illegal) stop just to search and then find stuff are not legal and that evidence from such searches is not permissible. After reading Sotomayor's ramblings, I'm more inclined to agree with the majority in this ruling.

 

[werepossum]

We know the events followed a sequence in time. How does saying that an event broke a sequence actually create anything but an intellectual decision to create a break that can't in fact actually exist since in reality one thing caused the next to happen. Can the naming of a break actually create one? Isn't this just creating an imaginary world in which the conclusions you want to make can happen as you wish them to? Without the illegal stop the rest would not have happened. This seems to me to be indisputable.

Just before the assassin I hired to kill my neighbor actually killed him I decided to call him to cancel the hit, but my cell phone battery was dead. This however caused a break in the fact the hit was the result of premeditation. I had changed my intention.

Hopefully Wolf or Venix or one of our other lawyers will step in, but my understanding of attenuation requires an event that materially changes behavior. Had not Strieff not been under outstanding warrant, the cop would not have searched him. Thus the outstanding warrant created a new situation which can be used as a separate tree, to continue the "poisoned tree" metaphor. Assuming that Strieff had been clean and the officer searched him, attenuation would not have been triggered and nothing he found would be admissible. Your example would not apply because it's a factor in the original tree, not something that creates a different legal situation. That is, attenuation requires not just something that changes the situation, but something that materially changes the legal situation.

Hopefully we all agree that there IS a bar above which the "poisoned tree" does not apply. Suppose for instance the cop pulls someone over for a broken tail light and then discovers that the tail light isn't broken but merely had a leaf stuck to it, but also discovers that the van is full of barrels of jellied gasoline wrapped with dynamite and a timer. I think only the very frothiest leftist or anarchist would insist that he be allowed to go along his merry bombing way. (For those hopefully few people, please substitute a loaded pistol and a Rush Limbaugh hardback for the truck bomb and I suspect we'll all be in agreement.)

Assuming we all agree on that point, the issue becomes whether the illegal stop should confer any immunity whatsoever, and if so, to what level. Sotomayor mostly just rants about racism and police abuse, but I think one could make a rational point that the Fourth Amendment still demands some level of protection from a search resulting from a good faith but illegal basis. (She can be ethically correct and still choose an emotional dissent for impact.) Thomas et al pay lip service to this idea, but in my mind the idea that something as minor as an outstanding failure to appear warrant could trigger attenuation for something as minor as a drug possession nullifies much of the Fourth Amendment's protection. I am not a lawyer and claim no legal training or background, but as a layman I think at least one of those factors needs to be very significant to trigger attenuation.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hopefully Wolf or Venix or one of our other lawyers will step in, but my understanding of attenuation requires an event that materially changes behavior. Had not Strieff not been under outstanding warrant, the cop would not have searched him. Thus the outstanding warrant created a new situation which can be used as a separate tree, to continue the "poisoned tree" metaphor. Assuming that Strieff had been clean and the officer searched him, attenuation would not have been triggered and nothing he found would be admissible. Your example would not apply because it's a factor in the original tree, not something that creates a different legal situation. That is, attenuation requires not just something that changes the situation, but something that materially changes the legal situation.

Hopefully we all agree that there IS a bar above which the "poisoned tree" does not apply. Suppose for instance the cop pulls someone over for a broken tail light and then discovers that the tail light isn't broken but merely had a leaf stuck to it, but also discovers that the van is full of barrels of jellied gasoline wrapped with dynamite and a timer. I think only the very frothiest leftist or anarchist would insist that he be allowed to go along his merry bombing way. (For those hopefully few people, please substitute a loaded pistol and a Rush Limbaugh hardback for the truck bomb and I suspect we'll all be in agreement.)

Assuming we all agree on that point, the issue becomes whether the illegal stop should confer any immunity whatsoever, and if so, to what level. Sotomayor mostly just rants about racism and police abuse, but I think one could make a rational point that the Fourth Amendment still demands some level of protection from a search resulting from a good faith but illegal basis. (She can be ethically correct and still choose an emotional dissent for impact.) Thomas et al pay lip service to this idea, but in my mind the idea that something as minor as an outstanding failure to appear warrant could trigger attenuation for something as minor as a drug possession nullifies much of the Fourth Amendment's protection. I am not a lawyer and claim no legal training or background, but as a layman I think at least one of those factors needs to be very significant to trigger attenuation.

I am not a lawyer either but my understanding of the word attenuation refers to factors which in the eyes of a jury suggest some sort of empathetic reaction for the criminal that creates a desire for a lessoning of some a maximum sentence. This suggests to me then, that what creates attenuation in this case is the fact that the defendant was only caught by the fact of the illegal detainment, that while guilty of having an outstanding warrant, that would not have come to light were it not for the illegal detainment, that regardless of what branch of the tree we are talking about the root started with the illegal arrest and everything else followed from that. In my opinion that is simply an logically inescapable fact. Any new circumstance that occurred after that would have otherwise never happened as it did.

The law as I see it is binary and locked to that fact. One is either guilty or innocent. One has or does not have outstanding warrants. The law can't turn a blind eye to the fact of guilt. I believe that those on the court that dislike the notion that someone illegally arrested turning up as guilty of some other crime but still go free is more morally repugnant than the alternative view. The assumption of innocence of people arrested for crimes until proven guilty in a court of law has always been a liberal view that is hard to swallow. The notion that if a person is not read his rights is also difficult to handle. This case, I think, is another where the liberal notion of evidence obtained illegally is put to the test. My personal opinion is that that tolerance for the freedom of individuals as seen by our forefathers is slowly being lost. Our forefathers, I think, were more afraid of government than people are today. Our courts and their opinions reflect who we are. Perhaps our great enlightenment is going dark. All I know is that I can't disconnect the illegal arrest from the drug conviction nor do l like the idea that a criminal can walk.

 

[JEDI]

Everyone agrees the stop itself was illegal. However, the fact that the warrant existed isn't affected by the stop itself, and the arrest and search were the result of the (valid) prior warrant. The justices are arguing that the contraband was in fact not fruit from the poisoned tree, but rather fruit of the search/arrest related to the warrant. The fact that all those actions occurred after (or as a result of) an illegal stop isn't sufficient grounds to disallow what they found while arresting for the warrant.

I am highly skeptical of that logic, it is a yuuuge loophole for abuse. However, the court did make it clear that "fishing expeditions", where there's a BS (illegal) stop just to search and then find stuff are not legal and that evidence from such searches is not permissible. After reading Sotomayor's ramblings, I'm more inclined to agree with the majority in this ruling.

hm.. would refusing to show ID create a cause for the cop to search him?

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Oh absolutely. I agree that the warrant can't be ignored but the new evidence, especially in this case, should not be admissible.

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh absolutely. I agree that the warrant can't be ignored but the new evidence, especially in this case, should not be admissible.

Why not? Why are you of that opinion?

 

[Darwin333]

Everyone agrees the stop itself was illegal. However, the fact that the warrant existed isn't affected by the stop itself, and the arrest and search were the result of the (valid) prior warrant. The justices are arguing that the contraband was in fact not fruit from the poisoned tree, but rather fruit of the search/arrest related to the warrant. The fact that all those actions occurred after (or as a result of) an illegal stop isn't sufficient grounds to disallow what they found while arresting for the warrant.

I am highly skeptical of that logic, it is a yuuuge loophole for abuse. However, the court did make it clear that "fishing expeditions", where there's a BS (illegal) stop just to search and then find stuff are not legal and that evidence from such searches is not permissible. After reading Sotomayor's ramblings, I'm more inclined to agree with the majority in this ruling.

You changed your opinion based solely on the "ramblings of a SJW"?

 

[Darwin333]

Why not? Why are you of that opinion?

Which one, the warrant or the new evidence?

I already explained why the warrant can't simply be ignored but any evidence that comes from an illegal stop, IE LEO should have never interacted with the person in the first place and had no legal right to stop them, should never be admissible. The reasoning is simple, if not for the illegal stop the evidence wouldn't have been found.

 

[JEDI]

I already explained why the warrant can't simply be ignored but any evidence that comes from an illegal stop, IE LEO should have never interacted with the person in the first place and had no legal right to stop them, should never be admissible. The reasoning is simple, if not for the illegal stop the evidence wouldn't have been found.

wait.. warrant cant be ignored?

so if the cop in this case didn't find anything else in his illegal stop beyond the arrest warrant for missing a traffic court date, he should still arrest the person?

why doesn't fruit from a poisoned tree apply there?

if he never stopped the person, he would have never found out who he was.
(same thing if the person refused to show ID?)

 

[Moonbeam]

Which one, the warrant or the new evidence?

I already explained why the warrant can't simply be ignored but any evidence that comes from an illegal stop, IE LEO should have never interacted with the person in the first place and had no legal right to stop them, should never be admissible. The reasoning is simple, if not for the illegal stop the evidence wouldn't have been found.

Except that it was found which can't be undone. Now you are asking that a crime be ignored because of an illegal search. Perhaps the police should be obliged to pay the defendant's trial expenses or some other cost to the police to deter future abuses.

 

[werepossum]

I am not a lawyer either but my understanding of the word attenuation refers to factors which in the eyes of a jury suggest some sort of empathetic reaction for the criminal that creates a desire for a lessoning of some a maximum sentence. This suggests to me then, that what creates attenuation in this case is the fact that the defendant was only caught by the fact of the illegal detainment, that while guilty of having an outstanding warrant, that would not have come to light were it not for the illegal detainment, that regardless of what branch of the tree we are talking about the root started with the illegal arrest and everything else followed from that. In my opinion that is simply an logically inescapable fact. Any new circumstance that occurred after that would have otherwise never happened as it did.

The law as I see it is binary and locked to that fact. One is either guilty or innocent. One has or does not have outstanding warrants. The law can't turn a blind eye to the fact of guilt. I believe that those on the court that dislike the notion that someone illegally arrested turning up as guilty of some other crime but still go free is more morally repugnant than the alternative view. The assumption of innocence of people arrested for crimes until proven guilty in a court of law has always been a liberal view that is hard to swallow. The notion that if a person is not read his rights is also difficult to handle. This case, I think, is another where the liberal notion of evidence obtained illegally is put to the test. My personal opinion is that that tolerance for the freedom of individuals as seen by our forefathers is slowly being lost. Our forefathers, I think, were more afraid of government than people are today. Our courts and their opinions reflect who we are. Perhaps our great enlightenment is going dark. All I know is that I can't disconnect the illegal arrest from the drug conviction nor do l like the idea that a criminal can walk.

Be interesting to get the actual definition of attenuation explained by one of our lawyers.

I full agree with your last paragraph, and well said. Often we don't get a right choice and a wrong choice, but two (or more) bad choices. Sometimes the relative weight is overwhelmingly apparent, such as stealing food for a starving child. Other times, like this case, the balance is much more debatable. I only know that of the two choices, I'd much rather have another meth head roaming the streets than set the precedent that illegal searches can produce actionable evidence for even the most trivial of offenses. Guess I'm one of those troglodytes with an old-fashioned appreciation of freedom.

 

[Moonbeam]

Be interesting to get the actual definition of attenuation explained by one of our lawyers.

I full agree with your last paragraph, and well said. Often we don't get a right choice and a wrong choice, but two (or more) bad choices. Sometimes the relative weight is overwhelmingly apparent, such as stealing food for a starving child. Other times, like this case, the balance is much more debatable. I only know that of the two choices, I'd much rather have another meth head roaming the streets than set the precedent that illegal searches can produce actionable evidence for even the most trivial of offenses. Guess I'm one of those troglodytes with an old-fashioned appreciation of freedom.

Personally I would hold it as a high ideal right up there with some legal screw up shouldn't free a guilty individual. The problem with binary systems is that they need to be codified. We don't do justice on a case by case basis, eliminating individual jury bias but in the process sanction whatever bias pertains in at least 5 members of the Supreme Court. One would think that 9 0 would be rather typical yet we see 5 4 a great deal of the time. That says to me that the Supreme court is political rather than faithful to the letter of the law. That for me spoils the sense that I grew up win regarding the impartiality of the law.

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

People with arrest warrants need to be in jail or prison. And not pretend that there's some right to be a fugitive.

 

[Moonbeam]

People with arrest warrants need to be in jail or prison. And not pretend that there's some right to be a fugitive.

I think your notion that somebody is pretending, as you put it, is delusional.

 

[werepossum]

Personally I would hold it as a high ideal right up there with some legal screw up shouldn't free a guilty individual. The problem with binary systems is that they need to be codified. We don't do justice on a case by case basis, eliminating individual jury bias but in the process sanction whatever bias pertains in at least 5 members of the Supreme Court. One would think that 9 0 would be rather typical yet we see 5 4 a great deal of the time. That says to me that the Supreme court is political rather than faithful to the letter of the law. That for me spoils the sense that I grew up win regarding the impartiality of the law.

Well said again, sir. It also bothers me that so often in 5:4 decisions, the justices are split not on some arcane technicality of the law, but on its fundamental meaning.

 

[The Merg]

While it's a bit hard for me to tell what some people are arguing for, there appears to be two separate questions here:



1. Can you stop someone, request ID, and take them into custody for an outstanding warrant for their arrest if found EVEN IF the original stop was without reasonable cause?



I'd argue YES.



2. In addition to the same situation listed above, if you find drugs/weapons on the person of someone you're searching (incidental to taking them into custody for the outstanding warrant for arrest) and then use anything found as the basis of additional charges to what the arrest warrant entailed then I would argue NO because the original search was without probable cause.

Although, according to SCOTUS now, both are allowed. Basically, the majority is stating that since the subject had a warrant, he would be arrested on the warrant and the drugs would have been found on him during the search incident to arrest. So for the search itself, there was probable cause as the subject had an active arrest warrant. The question is how knowledge of the warrant became known.

That being said, while I agree he should go to jail on the outstanding warrant as it really doesn't matter how it is discovered, I don't think any evidence discovered during the search should be allowed in court.

In this case, it seems they were trying to push the idea that this was a Terry Stop as he observed the subject coming out of a suspected drug house. However, the officer, prosecutor, and courts all admitted the stop was illegal, so for all purposes there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the stop.

So, take this to the extreme... An officer sees someone walking down the street and stops them and asks for ID. Upon checking his ID, he determines the guy has a warrant and search incident to arrest discovers a murder weapon. Should that weapon be admissible in court as evidence?


- Merg

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[The Merg]

wait.. warrant cant be ignored?



so if the cop in this case didn't find anything else in his illegal stop beyond the arrest warrant for missing a traffic court date, he should still arrest the person?



why doesn't fruit from a poisoned tree apply there?



if he never stopped the person, he would have never found out who he was.

(same thing if the person refused to show ID?)

The warrant can't be ignored as it is a court order to take the person into custody. It really doesn't matter how the officer found out about it.

But let's take a look at it from your point of view. The officer does an illegal stop and finds the subject has an outstanding warrant, but since it's an illegal stop the officer let's the subject go. At what point can the officer stop the subject again to make the stop legal and then arrest him. The officer now knows this subject has an outstanding warrant. Does he have to wait a certain amount of time? Can he follow the subject until he sees him jaywalk or litter and can then stop him again.

SCOTUS is not split on whether the subject should have been arrested. There is no argument there; the arrest was valid. The question is whether anything found on him during the search incident to arrest should be excluded since the original stop was deemed illegal. The conservatives argue that since the arrest was valid, any evidence found during the search is valid. The liberals argued that since the stop was illegal, even though the arrest was valid, the evidence found during the search would not have been found at that time, hence it is inadmissible.


- Merg

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JEDI]

So, take this to the extreme... An officer sees someone walking down the street and stops them and asks for ID. Upon checking his ID, he determines the guy has a warrant and search incident to arrest discovers a murder weapon. Should that weapon be admissible in court as evidence?


- Merg

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

but you don't have to show ID.

The warrant can't be ignored as it is a court order to take the person into custody. It really doesn't matter how the officer found out about it.

SCOTUS is not split on whether the subject should have been arrested. There is no argument there; the arrest was valid. The question is whether anything found on him during the search incident to arrest should be excluded since the original stop was deemed illegal. The conservatives argue that since the arrest was valid, any evidence found during the search is valid. The liberals argued that since the stop was illegal, even though the arrest was valid, the evidence found during the search would not have been found at that time, hence it is inadmissible.


- Merg

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

if the warrant is valid, then I say evidence found because of the warrant is valid.

that's logical. the illegal drugs found is not fruit from the initial illegal stop.
it's fruit from a valid warrant.

but I say this could all have been avoided if the person refused to show ID.

 

[PokerGuy]

You changed your opinion based solely on the "ramblings of a SJW"?

No, reading her ramblings made it pretty obvious that side of the argument was wrong, which made me re-read the majority opinion and think it through.

I'm still not in agreement with argument that the evidence found subsequent to the illegal stop should be allowed simply because there was a warrant, but I understand the position and how it can make sense in a lot of instances.

For example, lets say a cop pulls over someone with insufficient grounds (ie, an illegal stop). Then it turns out there's a warrant out for the guy for armed robbery. Obviously the guy is going to get arrested for the warrant. Now suppose when arresting him on that warrant, you find a bunch of child porn on his phone, he's been making videos. Should you basically ignore that evidence and let him walk, or do you add on additional charges based on the evidence found?

The evidence you found was because of the search related to the legitimate warrant. The fact that it came subsequent to an illegal stop doesn't really change the equation. That's essentially what the majority is saying.

 

[The Merg]

but you don't have to show ID.







if the warrant is valid, then I say evidence found because of the warrant is valid.



that's logical. the illegal drugs found is not fruit from the initial illegal stop.

it's fruit from a valid warrant.



but I say this could all have been avoided if the person refused to show ID.

I don't think the original case really says how the guy was identified, just that he was. So it could have even have been verbally. The point is not how he was identified, but rather that the stop was illegal.

And the more I keep reading, the more I am agreeing with SCOTUS (or technically, the lower courts).

What's interesting is they are basically saying that if you have warrant out for you, it does not matter why you are stopped (legal or illegal). Anything on your person (and potentially in your vehicle) can be used against you if found to be illegal or evidence of a crime.


- Merg

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jackstar7]

No, reading her ramblings made it pretty obvious that side of the argument was wrong, which made me re-read the majority opinion and think it through.

I'm still not in agreement with argument that the evidence found subsequent to the illegal stop should be allowed simply because there was a warrant, but I understand the position and how it can make sense in a lot of instances.

For example, lets say a cop pulls over someone with insufficient grounds (ie, an illegal stop). Then it turns out there's a warrant out for the guy for armed robbery. Obviously the guy is going to get arrested for the warrant. Now suppose when arresting him on that warrant, you find a bunch of child porn on his phone, he's been making videos. Should you basically ignore that evidence and let him walk, or do you add on additional charges based on the evidence found?

The evidence you found was because of the search related to the legitimate warrant. The fact that it came subsequent to an illegal stop doesn't really change the equation. That's essentially what the majority is saying.

But the hypothetical you're laying out is their best case scenario.

And your Sotomayor disdain is noted for the record.

 

[werepossum]

Although, according to SCOTUS now, both are allowed. Basically, the majority is stating that since the subject had a warrant, he would be arrested on the warrant and the drugs would have been found on him during the search incident to arrest. So for the search itself, there was probable cause as the subject had an active arrest warrant. The question is how knowledge of the warrant became known.

That being said, while I agree he should go to jail on the outstanding warrant as it really doesn't matter how it is discovered, I don't think any evidence discovered during the search should be allowed in court.

In this case, it seems they were trying to push the idea that this was a Terry Stop as he observed the subject coming out of a suspected drug house. However, the officer, prosecutor, and courts all admitted the stop was illegal, so for all purposes there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the stop.

So, take this to the extreme... An officer sees someone walking down the street and stops them and asks for ID. Upon checking his ID, he determines the guy has a warrant and search incident to arrest discovers a murder weapon. Should that weapon be admissible in court as evidence?


- Merg

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Personally I'd be fine with admitting a murder weapon. I just think that the bar should be quite high, otherwise the Fourth Amendment is effectively abolished in that instance. It could be as simple as "I smelled marijuana".