There is no way the officer had probable cause.
The first legal question is if he had reasonable suspicion to detain the person. It seems that your position is that the stop was legal. Can you expound upon your interpretation of grounds for reasonable suspicion as it applies to this case?
It's just the continuing trend where the SC has chipped away at 4th amendment protections, just like Heien v. North Carolina, where an officer didn't know the law and illegally stopped someone, later discovering contraband that led to a conviction. So much for the exclusionary rule...
Let me know when you come back around to the reality of this decision rather than hitting me for my editorializing. Last I checked a comment is required with an OP, so I gave mine.
This is insane. It means you're at risk with anything on your record that could justify an initial stop... or nothing at all!
Is this the right amount of hyperbole you condescending jackass?
So long 4th, apparently a bunch of people hardly knew ye.
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.
This notion that cops have no authority to stop and ID people.
It's hard for me to appreciate a claim of rights I never knew existed. Far as I'm aware the 4th doesn't work that way.
What grants the cops that authority to stop and ID people?
You want me to repeat the details of the story?
There was a call to report crime. Cops saw suspicious activity... a person involved got stopped and checked for ID.
This notion that cops have no authority to stop and ID people.
It's hard for me to appreciate a claim of rights I never knew existed. Far as I'm aware the 4th doesn't work that way.
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.
I would argue NO because the original search was without probable cause.
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.
You want me to repeat the details of the story?
There was a call to report crime. Cops saw suspicious activity... a person involved got stopped and checked for ID.
This notion that cops have no authority to stop and ID people.
It's hard for me to appreciate a claim of rights I never knew existed. Far as I'm aware the 4th doesn't work that way.
The question in this case is whether this attenuation doctrine applies when an officer makes an unconstitutional investigatory stop; learns during that stop that the suspect is subject to a valid arrest warrant; and proceeds to arrest the suspect and seize incriminating evidence during a search incident to that arrest. We hold that the evidence the officer seized as part of the search incident to arrest is admissible because the officers discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.
So the police can baselessly stop and detain people while they perform a background check?
No, they can freely stop any of them, with reasonable suspicion. They are limited to using evidence found on 3/4 of them.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.
"But the court has also held that, even when there is a Fourth Amendment violation, this exclusionary rule does not apply when the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent benefits. In some cases, for example, the link between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of the evidence is too attenuated to justify suppression."
No, they can free stop them all. They are limited to using evidence found on 3/4 of them.
After the unlawful stop, his conduct was lawful, and there is no indication that the stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct.
Officer Fackrell’s purpose was not to conduct a suspicionless fishing expedition but was to gather information about activity inside a house whose occupants were legitimately suspected of dealing drugs. Strieff conflates the standard for an illegal stop with the standard for flagrancy, which requires more than the mere absence of proper cause. Second, it is unlikely that the prevalence of outstanding warrants will lead to
dragnet searches by police. Such misconduct would expose police to civil liability and, in any event, is already accounted for by Brown’s “purpose and flagrancy” factor.
In principle I agree with this, but in practice, some drugs and drug paraphernalia sets the bar far too low in my opinion. If they can prosecute for drug possession, a victimless crime, then they can prosecute for literally anything found; the deterrent effect is always going to be higher than the cost of exclusion. I could see this for evidence of DUI, murder, rape, terrorism, child molestation/endangerment/pornography - things which result in great personal or societal harm or reasonable potential harm - but here the charges and thus the presumed societal damage are relatively minor. It's yet another assault on the Fourth Amendment - it might LOOK minor, but it's certainly going to have a widespread effect on the Fourth by letting cops know that even if the reason for the stop is bullshit, they can still make arrests stick.
While many of you were complaining about your first and second amendment rights being stripped away, you actually lost your 4th.
Never have anything on your record, even a parking ticket, or you can be searched unconstitutionally and then it will be said its okay after the fact if they find anything deemed... something... who knows.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf
Now, who among you conservatives will say something nice about Sotomayor? Because she was on the side of protecting our rights and frequently has been trying to protect the 4th. But the authoritarians won this one.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/utah-streiff-sotomayor/487922/
Can't wait to read all the conservative praise about Thomas in this case. He really stepped up and took a big shit on the Constitution.
Ah, I'm kidding. I know no one has anything to say about this, because GUNS!
No, they can free stop them all. They are limited to using evidence found on 3/4 of them.
I think Thomas has the correct logic, but Sotomayor came to the correct conclusion. To quote Thomas:
In principle I agree with this, but in practice, some drugs and drug paraphernalia sets the bar far too low in my opinion. If they can prosecute for drug possession, a victimless crime, then they can prosecute for literally anything found; the deterrent effect is always going to be higher than the cost of exclusion. I could see this for evidence of DUI, murder, rape, terrorism, child molestation/endangerment/pornography - things which result in great personal or societal harm or reasonable potential harm - but here the charges and thus the presumed societal damage are relatively minor. It's yet another assault on the Fourth Amendment - it might LOOK minor, but it's certainly going to have a widespread effect on the Fourth by letting cops know that even if the reason for the stop is bullshit, they can still make arrests stick.
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.
What I hear in the two opinions above is a suspicion in one that our legal system will provide real justice and in the other a faith that it will.
The extent to which any system can approximate justice depends, heavily, in my opinion, on the quality of the souls making the decisions as to what it is.
As in all things, the degree to which the idealism of liberal values win out over the realities of life experiences that create a factual foundation for cynicism, depend on the normative experiences like a bell curve, that the average person in a society experiences.
I would say that the quality and degree of evolution a society can attain and maintain depend of how positively the average man sees his future.
The way I assess the greatness of an individual is by the quality of his ideals. This is why I greatly admire the Buddhist whose prayer is. I vow to save all sentient beings.
Cops can now legally stop and question you for absolutely no reason.
I'm still hung up on this notion that it was an illegal stop.
Drug Tip -> House -> Suspect -> Drugs.
It's a direct cause and effect from someone telling the police about the drugs.
I'm still hung up on this notion that it was an illegal stop.
Drug Tip -> House -> Suspect -> Drugs.
It's a direct cause and effect from someone telling the police about the drugs.
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 agrees that it was an illegal stop.
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.