Probable Cause is Dead

A divided Supreme Court bolstered police powers on Monday, ruling that evidence of a crime in some cases may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.

Source

Download: PDF (14-1373 Utah v. Strieff)

The decision came after a case involving a police officer who illegally stopped a man in South Salt Lake City. After running his name, it was discovered that he had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. The man was arrested and searched by the officer which led to the discovery of methamphetamine.

The case raised the question of whether the valid warrant outweighs the stop, which was illegal because Fackrell lacked any reasonable suspicion that Strieff had been violating the law. It was the court's latest case that questions whether evidence should be thrown out of court because the police did something wrong or illegal that led to the discovery of the evidence.

They are downplaying the officers actions as not a flagrant violation of the law. Again, lots of flex in how the constitution is interpreted when defending their actions (those designated to uphold the it), but as rigid as a steel girder when prosecuting civilians. Justice Clarence Thomas stated: "While Officer Fackrell's decision to initiate the stop was mistaken, his conduct thereafter was lawful," How easily in the future will officers be “mistakenly” pulling people over after being profiled, possibly leading to a substantiated, but unlawful arrest? Justice Sotomayor correctly described the ruling as a blow to our constitutional rights.

"The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer's violation of your Fourth Amendment rights,"

While some may not agree, she went on to describe the “humiliations” of unjustified police searches and that "people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny." Another Justice, Elena Kagen, said that the ruling “creates unfortunate incentives for the police”, inviting them to illegally run people’s names, potentially leading to an arrest. Sotomayor continued to expand on the issue by reminding her constituents that “outstanding warrants are increasingly common.” So common in fact, that the example they cited left me in disbelief.

In one prominent example, the Justice Department's 2015 report that faulted police practices in Ferguson, Missouri, found that 16,000 of Ferguson's 21,000 residents had outstanding warrants.

Faulted police practices? More like illegal data gathering using their fancy toys. Many of those warrants are due to unpaid traffic fines, but having the foreknowledge on that many residents reduces the officers job to shooting fish in a barrel. What would normally not result in jail time could possibly lead to an arrest if the officer gets the urge to pull you over. The majority saw this as a good thing, but I can’t help speculate that with what the officers have at their disposal, massive sweeps can be conducted in order to run names to get an idea where this new found power can be exploited.

The argument made by Strieff's supporters is that in places with so many outstanding warrants, officers have a good chance of randomly stopping someone who has not paid a fine for a minor infraction.

But Thomas, in his majority opinion, said that Fackrell's "discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest."

It’s happening people. When you are the puppet, it doesn’t matter which partisan hand is up your ass. They come at us from both sides, while we remain distracted by what's in front of us. We are still allowed to challenge such unlawful activity, but only after our rights have been violated, compounded by the possibility of the courts upholding further prosecution based upon the illegal search conducted. Watch out before it’s too late and pay those parking tickets!

a reply to: eisegesis

You know what's sad? And don't take this personally OP, nothing against you.

After starting to read through the OP, I thought this source had to be some fringe site heavily laden with spin and a loose interpretation of the facts.

Turns out nope, not at all.

Then I thought well maybe the warrant was a felony charge of some sort, since meth is involved.

Turns out nope.

And then I see that the majority opinion is that since the rights were only violated a little, and they weren't violated just to be mean, it's okay because there was a warrant.

For a freaking parking ticket.

Good find, this deserves a lot of attention. Problem is these incidences, leading up to this are often accepted. "They were guilty, deserved it" even though the PD was in the wrong.

a reply to: Shamrock6

The fact that it was over a parking ticket is sad, but most people experience mismanagement, bad memory or have to deal with unforeseen circumstances.

I'd hate to think that my Fourth Amendment had to be waived and trampled on just because I forgot to mail a few bucks to the State. Many think such ticketing practices are part of a scheme to generate revenue.

I'm also a bigger picture type of guy and can see where this can be abused and eventually commonplace. In the future, your property becomes theirs at their discretion. Sounds inviting.

My kid got arrested a while back. You know what? He frikkin' deserved it. Wound up costing me $1100 to bail his ass out of jail ... but, he deserved it.

You keep your nose clean. You pay what you owe. You don't buck the system. Why? Because we're supposed to be civilized and we're supposed to play by the agreed upon rules of society.

If you don't ... you've got nothing to bitch about. If you do, you can be on my team when the Revolution starts.

originally posted by: Snarl
You don't buck the system. Why? Because we're supposed to be civilized and we're supposed to play by the agreed upon rules of society.

Everybody don't play by the same rules.

a reply to: eisegesis
Do I understand this right?

1) You can be stopped for any or no reason and can be checked for outstanding warrants.
2) If there is an outstanding warrant, for anything, any incriminating evidence which may be obtained as a result of what is now a legal search is admissible regardless of the original warrant.


Great. I wonder how Garland would have voted, or Scalia for that matter.

a reply to: eisegesis
So if I'm understanding what they were saying in layman's terms---the cops broke the law a little bit but that's okay because the end (more revenue for the state) justifies the means (breaking the law a little bit) and it makes no difference if the perp only broke the law a little bit (parking tickets) because the cops are now allowed to break the law a little bit if it means more money into the system. Illegal stops are okay as long as one can find something in the vehicle that would bring charges (or, as is pretty common in some PDs. just drop a little something in the car while searching.) I know of one criminal defense attorney who absolutely blew up today when he read this! What he said doesn't work with the rules of this site so I shan't repeat it.
As I said in another thread, that swamp called DC needs to be drained---completely----so that all the scum inhabiting it can be exposed to sunlight. The black-robed tribe needs to be cleaned out along with the Executive and Legislative branches. the entire tribe, not just the Grand Wizards in DC but all of the federal appointments. I'm for a lottery system to pick these sorts of public servants---serve eight years as a public servant then go back to private life. If one just "needs" to be a public servant there are multitudes of charities needing help.

I can see both sides of this issue. The question is in the end...should we sacrifice what is right for due process ?

Its a sliperry slope...no matter which way you go.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: eisegesis
So if I'm understanding what they were saying in layman's terms---the cops broke the law a little bit but that's okay because the end (more revenue for the state) justifies the means (breaking the law a little bit) and it makes no difference if the perp only broke the law a little bit

The cop can break the law to obtain info on the perp. But, then the cop should go to jail, like anyone who breaks the law. The info the cop gets, however, is still valid, so the perp also goes to jail.

The cop did the honorable thing, sacrificing his freedom in order to obtain the critical info to convict the perp. But, the sacrifice must be real, the judge can't excuse the cop who broke the law, because if the cop gets excused then the perp must be excused too.

We honor the cops who lay down their life to protect the public. That's good. But, the cop is in the grave.

So, if we honor the cops who break the law to get convictions of perps, that too would only be good, if the cop is in lockup.

What we honor is the "sacrifice" in the face of duty.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

The question is in the end...should we sacrifice what is right for due process ?

Huh? I have always thought of due process as being right.
But I don't see this as a due process issue, exactly. It's more of an reasonable suspicion thing. Probable cause, as the OP says. That seems to have just gone *poof*.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

The question is in the end...should we sacrifice what is right for due process ?

Huh? I have always thought of due process as being right.

Always ? I'm surprised.

Sometimes due process sets rapists and murderers or wife beaters back on the streets.

Its not end to all solution...

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Sometimes due process sets rapists and murderers or wife beaters back on the streets.

Yes. Better that than imprisoning the innocent (which happens often enough).
Due process is right.

a reply to: Phage

Isnt probable cause in the core of this due process ?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Sometimes due process sets rapists and murderers or wife beaters back on the streets.

Yes. Better that than imprisoning the innocent (which happens often enough).
Due process is right.

Its only right sometimes. Often its wrong...thats why due process is changing all the time.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

No.
Due process is about the judicial system. This is about the enforcement end of things. The cops.
Law vs Justice.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
I can see both sides of this issue. The question is in the end...should we sacrifice what is right for due process ?

Its a sliperry slope...no matter which way you go.

Sorry but I don't see a slope, just a cliff that the Black-Robed Tribe just took us over.
What is "right" about violating a citizen's Constitutional, unalienable rights?
When did becoming a police officer put one in a different class of people? A class that can break the law without consequences? What happened to "equal before the law"?
There are so many things wrong about this decision that it simply boggles the mind.

a reply to: eisegesis

The loss of rights is nothing new, including the loss of police needing probable cause. It's been more than a quarter century since Michigan Department Of State Police V. Sitz has been ruled upon. Remember, in that ruling Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that DUI checkpoints are technically unconstitutional, but the substantial public interest in stopping DUI drivers outweighed your Constitutional rights. Rulings like this are nothing new.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

FROM THE OPINION By Justice Rehnquist

This case poses the question whether a state's use of highway sobriety checkpoints violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not and therefore reverse the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals of Michigan.

So, he did not say what you say he said.

a reply to: Phage

Yeah, I could have worded it better, but the fact remains that he basically said as much. If you read the rest of the majority opinion, Rehnquist goes on a tangent about minimal and brief intrusion, blah blah blah. The 4th is rather clear in it's wording, and has no provisions for length of time or scope of the warrantless search. It cites no examples such as government interest as exclusionary of probable cause. So, if you care to be honest with yourself for once, you can plainly see that he was saying as much in a roundabout way.