SC 4th Amendment Decision

[Jaskalas]

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?

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.

 

[woolfe9998]

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...

Not really. The court's 4th amendment decisions over the past 20 years have gone both ways in about equal numbers. It seems to depend on the particular issue as well as the composition of the court at the time of the decision.

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

 

[jackstar7]

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.

Except that you're still missing the point of this case.

 

[jackstar7]

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.

Solipsism.

What grants the cops that authority to stop and ID people? Is there legislation to that effect? Or do you just cede your rights to your self because you're one of those "don't do anything wrong and you'll have nothing to hide" Patriot Act proponents?

Oh! Lemme guess! You hate the Patriot Act, right?

 

[Jaskalas]

What grants the cops that authority to stop and ID people?

What grants them the right to act on probable cause?
Maybe because it's their job.

 

[glenn1]

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.

2. In addition to the same situation listed above, if you find drugs/weapons on the person of someone you're searching (incidental to taking them into custody for the outstanding warrant for arrest) and then use anything found as the basis of additional charges to what the arrest warrant entailed then I would argue NO because the original search was without probable cause.

 

[jackstar7]

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.

Can you make that argument?

 

[Jaskalas]

I would argue NO because the original search was without probable cause.

As I understand it, the search was part of the arrest for being a fugitive, no?
Identifying a person, by itself, does not constitute a "search". Right?

 

[Brainonska511]

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.

So the police can baselessly stop and detain people while they perform a background check?

 

[Venix]

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.

Police do not have authority to stop and ID people without reasonable suspicion. The officer in this case lacked reasonable suspicion.

This isn't debatable. The Supreme Court said the stop was illegal. Even the prosecutor "conceded that Officer Fackrell lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop." Nobody involved in the case believes that the stop was legal.

This is all explained in the opening paragraph of the opinion:

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 officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.

 

[glenn1]

So the police can baselessly stop and detain people while they perform a background check?

Nothing is stopping them from doing so now, to counterbalance that we disallow prosecution based upon crimes uncovered persuant to the stop.

Stopping someone without cause and taking them into custody for an outstanding arrest warrant doesn't involve new charges but rather forces them to answer to charges already being considered by the court that issued the warrant in the first place. If someone was in jail and broke free, we wouldn't say "well we had no reasonable suspicion to stop you so you don't need to return to jail." Same thing with an arrest warrant.

 

[werepossum]

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.

No, they can freely stop any of them, with reasonable suspicion. 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:

"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."

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.

 

[Svnla]

It is scary and sad that US citizens are slowly losing their Constitutional rights.

Case in point - cops (in OK) can scan your credit cards, gift cards, prepaid cards, etc. and put a hold or took the money from you (cards) if they want.

 

[interchange]

No, they can free stop them all. They are limited to using evidence found on 3/4 of them.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[JEDI]

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!

what I question about this is that the cop ran the guys ID after he stopped him.
I thought you don't have to give your ID?

what would have happened if the guy refused to give his ID? or heck, literally didn't have any ID on him?

does this ruling allow cops to demand to see your ID at any time? 😡
ie: Nazi Germany... 'Papers'

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

This reminds me of the time when the inimitable Mulla Nasrudin was made a judge. After the prosecution presented its case the Mulla banged down the gavel and announced, I think you are right. The defense leapt to its feet and presented its case, to which the Mulla again banged down the gavel repeating I think you are right. The Forman of the jury exclaimed, they can't both be right, to which the Mulla replied, I think you are right.

He who makes a man a judge, destroys him. A saying.

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.

 

[dainthomas]

Cliff notes version for the ADD crowd:

Cops can now legally stop and question you for absolutely no reason. Anything they find during these (baseless) searches can now be used for evidence.

Papers, please.

 

[interchange]

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.

Interesting that you hear that in my reply. I had not intended to actually render an opinion on the decision or on my faith in it or our justice system in greater context, at least not at that time.

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.

I do not disagree, I think. I only relent to such discussion because it is dangerous to purport correct position on something while failing to adequately challenge one's understanding of it. To do so only illuminates one's fears. Unfortunately, this leaves me desperate when faced with such a statement: "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."

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

 

[jackstar7]

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.

But you also said you don't know your rights in this matter.

 

[Venix]

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.

Please 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 agreed that it was an illegal stop. The point of contention was whether "the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest."

 

[waggy]

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.

 

[jackstar7]

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.

Because some people seem comfortable with the cops just running right over the rights they didn't even know they had.

So a short civics lesson was required.


I will say that I have enjoyed seeing the responses to this decision so far. Some fun twists and turns.

 

[Moonbeam]

interchange: Interesting that you hear that in my reply. I had not intended to actually render an opinion on the decision or on my faith in it or our justice system in greater context, at least not at that time.

M: I guess I just supposed that such a faith had to exist for there to be a will to also exist to adequately challenge one's understanding. I suppose that is natural for me because I believe that the greater the understanding the greater the justice rendered. They say like calls to like.



i: I do not disagree, I think. I only relent to such discussion because it is dangerous to purport correct position on something while failing to adequately challenge one's understanding of it. To do so only illuminates one's fears. Unfortunately, this leaves me desperate when faced with such a statement: "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."[/QUOTE]

M: Well, however desperate the situation we face may be, as long as there are people like you who value understanding, I will choose to be optimistic.

Who knows. Perhaps it is catching.