|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
At the suppression hearing, the prosecutor conceded that Officer Fackrell lacked reasonablesuspicion for the stop but argued that the evidence should
not be suppressed because the existence of a valid arrest
warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful
stop and the discovery of the contraband.
Based on a quick skim of the documents, it sounds like this case made it to the supreme court because the search occurred AFTER the police found out the guy had an existing warrant. I suspect if the police searched the guy before finding out about the warrant, then the evidence would have been thrown out. (just my guess)
The main thing I took away from my brief reading is that it is unlawful to stop someone without probable cause, and that it is also illegal to charge someone based on said stop. Therefore, Stop and Frisk is F$+%ING ILLEGAL! The NYPD has been making tens (hundreds) of thousands of illegal stops and there are probably tens of thousands of people wrapped up in the "justice" system because of it! Enforce the law, and prosecute the police!
Makes me wish I lived in a country where the law applied to the police and government not just poor and minorities.
According to Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, this won't cause police overreach because the threat of civil suits will keep them in line.
Ahhhh, Justice Thomas! F that guy in the ear! The lawsuit I was part of against the NYPD took over 10 years from my arrest date before I got paid! What a joke. Also, that money comes from tax dollars, not the NYPD specifically, so it is basically just raising peoples taxes because the police can't follow the law.