Illegally-gathered evidence is now legal (sometimes)

[Alzrius]

So I'm not sure how many people have heard about this, but on Monday the U.S. Supreme Court made a 5-3 ruling in Utah v. Strieff.

Up until now, the "exclusionary rule" - the rule that says that evidence which the police gather illegally cannot then be used in a court prosecution - applied to instances where the police stop someone without a "reasonable articulable suspicion."

However, the new ruling says that if the police stop you even without any such suspicion, evidence that they subsequently seize could still be admissible. 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.

There's a good op-ed about this over here.

[Rantraptor]

Just one more outrage from our busted system. Go figure.

Not that I'm downplaying the implications. Tyranny is all this is. "Civil forfeiture". . . . .

I don't even know where to start with this rant.

Give them your silent, obedient consent.

Ummmmm. Naw.

[mechaPoet]

Alzrius wrote:

However, the new ruling says that if the police stop you even without any such suspicion, evidence that they subsequently seize could still be admissible. 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

This won't cause police overreach because, hey, it's not like anything was keeping them from overreaching before.

[Lord Fyre]

Rantraptor wrote:

Just one more outrage from our busted system. Go figure.

Not that I'm downplaying the implications. Tyranny is all this is. "Civil forfeiture". . . . .

I don't even know where to start with this rant.

Give them your silent, obedient consent.

Ummmmm. Naw.

And thus, without comment, Liberty dies.

mechaPoet wrote:

Alzrius wrote:

However, the new ruling says that if the police stop you even without any such suspicion, evidence that they subsequently seize could still be admissible. 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

This won't cause police overreach because, hey, it's not like anything was keeping them from overreaching before.

/cry This is true.

[Freehold DM]

I need to know more. This is being couched in very specific terms. I am not going to judge just yet.

[Thomas Seitz]

Lord Fyre wrote:

And thus, without comment, Liberty dies.

In honor of that I posit this: Justice for All

[Freehold DM]

mechaPoet wrote:

Alzrius wrote:

However, the new ruling says that if the police stop you even without any such suspicion, evidence that they subsequently seize could still be admissible. 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

This won't cause police overreach because, hey, it's not like anything was keeping them from overreaching before.

also, this.

[Fergie]

S Court wrote:

At the suppression hearing, the prosecutor conceded that Officer Fackrell lacked reasonable

suspicion 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.

Alzrius wrote:

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.

[KingOfAnything]

In a vacuum, I would agree with the Supreme Court decision in this case. If you have a warrant out for your arrest and you are searched as part of that arrest, evidence found in that search is admissible.

But reality gives me pause.

[thejeff]

KingOfAnything wrote:

In a vacuum, I would agree with the Supreme Court decision in this case. If you have a warrant out for your arrest and you are searched as part of that arrest, evidence found in that search is admissible.

But reality gives me pause.

But if they only find out there's a warrant because they stopped you illegally ...

[Syrus Terrigan]

thejeff wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

In a vacuum, I would agree with the Supreme Court decision in this case. If you have a warrant out for your arrest and you are searched as part of that arrest, evidence found in that search is admissible.

But reality gives me pause.

But if they only find out there's a warrant because they stopped you illegally ...

Exactly.

[Thornborn]

So there was an existing warrant? So they could have gone to the guy's home, and got him. Instead, during their stopping of people for no good reason, they happened upon him. And, being used to stopping people for no good reason, and thinking they had no exposure to cover, they arrested the guy because that's what you do when there is a warrant. And during that arrest, found evidence of further crime.

If all that's true, I'd have to say, this guy does not get to skate on the technicality.

I would ALSO have to say, were I in the chair that says such things, that stopping random people needs to stop.

[thejeff]

Thornborn wrote:

So there was an existing warrant? So they could have gone to the guy's home, and got him. Instead, during their stopping of people for no good reason, they happened upon him. And, being used to stopping people for no good reason, and thinking they had no exposure to cover, they arrested the guy because that's what you do when there is a warrant. And during that arrest, found evidence of further crime.

If all that's true, I'd have to say, this guy does not get to skate on the technicality.

I would ALSO have to say, were I in the chair that says such things, that stopping random people needs to stop.

That's the point though: By allowing stopping random people to work, you incentivize stopping random people.

Practically speaking it's the same argument as the argument against any evidence obtained through an illegal search: On the one hand, the evidence exists and is real and now that it's been found there's no reason to not use it to convict the criminal.
OTOH, that means that there's no reason not to make the illegal searches and a good deal of incentive to do so. It would be possible to set up a system where the punishment of the officer(s) for committing an illegal search would be sufficient to remove the incentive - No point in getting your arrest/conviction numbers up if you're fired/jailed for it.
OTGH. Thomas's theory that the threat of civil suits would be sufficient is blatant nonsense - applied to this new ruling or applied to any illegal search - the logic is the same. Keeps you from doing it to people who can afford expensive lawyers, possibly.

I'm very disappointed in Breyer for this. The others I'm not surprised by.

[GreyWolfLord]

This actually has been happening in Utah prior to this. I have driven through that state on the highway and twice gotten stopped. They called it a papers check or something. Basically they closed the entire highway down and then as the cars line up, you provide your DL, Insurance, and registration.

I saw them call cars to stop and pull to the curb (rather than continue) for full on drug search with dogs in those.

Even worse, if they find ANYTHING at all, it seems they impound your car and sell it.

That this lawsuit occurred from a case in Utah doesn't surprise me.

I am surprised that the SC ruled in favor of the police. I have not read the brief from the SC, but from what people are saying in this thread, the resulting ruling sounds disheartening.

[KingOfAnything]

thejeff wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

In a vacuum, I would agree with the Supreme Court decision in this case. If you have a warrant out for your arrest and you are searched as part of that arrest, evidence found in that search is admissible.

But reality gives me pause.

But if they only find out there's a warrant because they stopped you illegally ...

Tainted evidence (or fruit of the poisonous tree) stems from an illegal search or seizure. I don't think there is a legal construct for an illegal stop. In fact, Terry v Ohio (followed by Hiibel) ruled that it is legal for police to stop citizens and briefly question them.

[thejeff]

KingOfAnything wrote:

thejeff wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

In a vacuum, I would agree with the Supreme Court decision in this case. If you have a warrant out for your arrest and you are searched as part of that arrest, evidence found in that search is admissible.

But reality gives me pause.

But if they only find out there's a warrant because they stopped you illegally ...

Tainted evidence (or fruit of the poisonous tree) stems from an illegal search or seizure. I don't think there is a legal construct for an illegal stop. In fact, Terry v Ohio (followed by Hiibel) ruled that it is legal for police to stop citizens and briefly question them.

If they have "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

And they may only frisk if there's a reasonable suspicion that they're armed presently dangerous. Though that doesn't apply in this case, since IIRC the search came after the arrest.

The trick here is that even if the Terry Stop isn't justified, during the Terry Stop they can arrest you if you refuse to give your name. Once they arrest you they can search you. Or if you give the name and they find the warrant at that point, they can arrest you. All even if the original Terry stop doesn't hold up. That's why the evidence should be tainted. Because the initial contact that started the process wasn't legal. The officer had no right to detain the suspect and demand a name.

Sotomayor wrote:

: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent.

Note that the warrant was in fact a "small traffic warrant". Not that it matters legally, but it may emotionally make a difference whether it's an unpaid traffic ticket or a murder charge.

[Charon's Little Helper]

GreyWolfLord wrote:

This actually has been happening in Utah prior to this. I have driven through that state on the highway and twice gotten stopped. They called it a papers check or something. Basically they closed the entire highway down and then as the cars line up, you provide your DL, Insurance, and registration.

That's from a law which allows road stops within X miles of the border. (I forget exactly how far. 150 miles? But in total it covers a huge chunk of the country.)

[KingOfAnything]

The fact that it was a "small traffic warrant" is part of the reality that gives me pause. The demographics of outstanding warrants makes this ruling ripe for abuse. It is my opinion that the principle of the ruling is sound, but the practical application of it will result in injustice.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Alzrius wrote:

There's a good op-ed about this over here.

Interesting article. And I do agree with him that Scalia probably would have sided with Sotomayor and the minority decision; I just wonder whether he would have swayed any of the other justices to change the court's decision. (Since it still would have been 5-4 with Scalia if no other justices changed their position.)

[thejeff]

KingOfAnything wrote:

The fact that it was a "small traffic warrant" is part of the reality that gives me pause. The demographics of outstanding warrants makes this ruling ripe for abuse. It is my opinion that the principle of the ruling is sound, but the practical application of it will result in injustice.

What do you see as the difference between this and an illegal search?

It's still an officer taking illegal actions that lead to finding the evidence, just one step removed.

[KingOfAnything]

I accept Justice Thomas' analysis that Officer Fackrell made good faith mistakes in dealing with Strieff. The stop was illegal because 1. Fackrell hadn't seen Strieff enter the dwelling under surveillance and 2. he demanded instead of asked Strieff answer questions about his business there. This was not targeting by racial, socio-economic, or any other protected class (No court even ruled on whether or not there was reasonable suspicion, it was a conceded argument). Fackrell was negligent in stopping Strieff, not purposeful or flagrant.

If the illegal search were purposeful, flagrant, or targeted, I don't think the warrant would have been enough to attenuate the connection. But, that hypothetical was not ruled on.

[bugleyman]

R.I.P. Fourth Amendment.

[Fergie]

bugleyman wrote:

R.I.P. Fourth Amendment.

I think the 4th Amendment died with all the PATRIOT act type stuff after 9/11. This is just poking the bloated corpse with a stick.

[bugleyman]

Fergie wrote:

I think the 4th Amendment died with all the PATRIOT act type stuff after 9/11. This is just poking the bloated corpse with a stick.

Good point.

There's an amazing difference between what we are and what we claim to be.

[thejeff]

bugleyman wrote:

Fergie wrote:

I think the 4th Amendment died with all the PATRIOT act type stuff after 9/11. This is just poking the bloated corpse with a stick.

Good point.

There's an amazing difference between what we are and what we claim to be.

OTOH, there's a lot of stuff it still covers. This decision, bad as it is, really is just a corner case. Hardly the death of the 4th, if it's still alive.