SC 4th Amendment Decision

[jackstar7]

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!

 

[Greenman]

Wrong is wrong, doesn't matter what party you belong to.

 

[jackstar7]

No question about it... but of late I've seen a lot of money talking and bullshit walking around here. I'd like to hear what they have to say about this.

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

No, it must be a current, active arrest warrant. Not just something on your record. And no, arrest warrants are not issued for parking tickets. You've basically gotten nothing right about the decision. Try again, with less hyperbole.

 

[Jaskalas]

Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant

So a fugitive has the right not to be searched? What?

 

[pcgeek11]

I am a conservative and I agree in the case linked that they had every right to arrest and search.

Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a SouthSalt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. The number of people he observed making brief visits to the house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants were dealing drugs.

He then requested Strieff’s identification and relayed the information to a police dispatcher, who informed him that Strieffhad an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation.

The officer arrested a man that had an arrest warrant outstanding. When you arrest someone you also search them for contraband. Standard accepted practice.

I do not have an issue with this at all.

 

[Meghan54]

I am a conservative and I agree in the case linked that they had every right to arrest and search.





The officer arrested a man that had an arrest warrant outstanding. When you arrest someone you also search them for contraband. Standard accepted practice.

I do not have an issue with this at all.

You really don't understand the underlying problem, do you?

 

[Brainonska511]

So a fugitive has the right not to be searched? What?

They didn't know that until he was illegally stopped and they ran a background check.

 

[zinfamous]

They didn't know that until he was illegally stopped and they ran a background check.

why was he illegally stopped? It seems that they were conducting surveillance on that area, based on a tip, and after collecting "enough data" had a reasonable assumption that the traffic related to his residency was drug related.

Are police no longer allowed to conduct investigations in this way?

Disclaimer: didn't read the article, so based on the snippets and posts in this thread so far.

 

[Brainonska511]

why was he illegally stopped? It seems that they were conducting surveillance on that area, based on a tip, and after collecting "enough data" had a reasonable assumption that the traffic related to his residency was drug related.

Are police no longer allowed to conduct investigations in this way?

Disclaimer: didn't read the article, so based on the snippets and posts in this thread so far.

In December 2006, South Salt Lake police detective Douglas Fackrell was holding surveillance on a suspected drug house. After Edward Strieff left the house, Fackrell stopped him at a nearby parking lot to question him. When he asked for his ID and ran a background check, the officer discovered that Strieff had an outstanding warrant for a traffic violation. At that point, Fackrell placed Strieff under arrest. During a subsequent search of Strieff, the officer found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.

Strieff claimed his Fourth Amendment rights of unreasonable search and seizure were violated. The Utah Supreme Court agreed and said the drugs that were found were not admissible in court.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court, conceded that Fackrell's initial stop lacked reasonable suspicion.

"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."

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=40298043&n...n-utah-drug-case-could-affect-police-searches

Will we allow for bringing back 'stop and frisk' under the notion that they are simply, isolated, "good-faith" mistakes when nothing turns up? Or like that quote in Futurama - "we'll decide what you were doing after an illegal search." 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...

 

[interchange]

They didn't know that until he was illegally stopped and they ran a background check.

To make such a detainment and check for said warrant, the officer would require reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Since you have asserted that the stop was illegal, can you expound upon your interpretation of grounds for reasonable suspicion as it applies to this case?

 

[Brainonska511]

To make such a detainment and check for said warrant, the officer would require reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Since you have asserted that the stop was illegal, can you expound upon your interpretation of grounds for reasonable suspicion as it applies to this case?

I don't need to expound on anything. Utah's SC and the majority opinion both expressed that the stop was wrong.

 

[Darwin333]

Wow that is some complete bullshit.

 

[Darwin333]

So a fugitive has the right not to be searched? What?

No, he was illegally stopped. The warrant was legal but the way the officer discovered the warrant and more importantly the drugs was via an illegal stop. Without the officers illegal stop the drugs would not have been found therefore the evidence against him came from an illegal stop by the officer.

 

[Darwin333]

To make such a detainment and check for said warrant, the officer would require reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Since you have asserted that the stop was illegal, can you expound upon your interpretation of grounds for reasonable suspicion as it applies to this case?

The Supreme Court said the stop was illegal.

 

[interchange]

The Supreme Court said the stop was illegal.

I know these things. I was hoping we could have an actual discussion about the issues instead of ranting.

 

[waggy]

The stop was illegal. so any evidence from the stop should be barred.

This was teh wrong decision.

 

[Paratus]

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.

 

[senseamp]

We are told that "Second Amendment defends all others," and yet it's the gun loving state of Utah that is acting against the Fourth Amendment here.

 

[Jaskalas]

They didn't know that until he was illegally stopped and they ran a background check.

Probable cause -> ID -> Arrest Warrant -> Arrest -> Search

Isn't that how it's supposed to work? How else?

 

[interchange]

Probable cause -> ID -> Arrest Warrant -> Arrest -> Search

Isn't that how it's supposed to work? How else?

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?

 

[senseamp]

I bet if Clarence Thomas got arrested a few times for visiting a friend too briefly, he'd change his mind.

 

[Pens1566]

Court ruled the initial stop was illegal. Bad decision. Fact that Thomas is the one championing it tells you all you need to know.

 

[jackstar7]

No, it must be a current, active arrest warrant. Not just something on your record. And no, arrest warrants are not issued for parking tickets. You've basically gotten nothing right about the decision. Try again, with less hyperbole.

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.

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

Yeah, that is the issue raised by Sotomayor in dissent. The majority opinion states that their holding does not permit suspicionless searches. I disagree with the ruling because I think it encourages police to be more lax about their reasons for a stop, though I don't see this ruling as a free for all.