HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Supreme Court rules for p...

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:13 AM

Supreme Court rules for police in search case

Source: AP

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.

The justices voted 5-3 to reinstate the drug-related convictions of a Utah man.

The ruling comes in a case in which a police detective illegally stopped defendant Joseph Edward Strieff on the streets of South Salt Lake City, Utah. A name check revealed an outstanding warrant for Strieff.

Strieff was placed under arrest and searched. He was carrying methamphetamine.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/1ef09db1314f4d749a574b3dcb3e5871



The most important part.

"The Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it."

Crazy stuff!

46 replies, 3334 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Supreme Court rules for police in search case (Original post)
NWCorona Jun 2016 OP
malthaussen Jun 2016 #1
JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #5
malthaussen Jun 2016 #6
cstanleytech Jun 2016 #35
Tikki Jun 2016 #2
midnight Jun 2016 #16
asiliveandbreathe Jun 2016 #3
NWCorona Jun 2016 #4
malthaussen Jun 2016 #11
ananda Jun 2016 #26
vdogg Jun 2016 #7
malthaussen Jun 2016 #9
arcane1 Jun 2016 #27
vdogg Jun 2016 #28
arcane1 Jun 2016 #29
Old Codger Jun 2016 #8
appal_jack Jun 2016 #21
CincyDem Jun 2016 #10
treestar Jun 2016 #12
treestar Jun 2016 #14
malthaussen Jun 2016 #15
treestar Jun 2016 #18
malthaussen Jun 2016 #39
treestar Jun 2016 #13
NWCorona Jun 2016 #19
7962 Jun 2016 #20
RobinA Jun 2016 #43
NoMoreRepugs Jun 2016 #17
7962 Jun 2016 #22
NoMoreRepugs Jun 2016 #25
7962 Jun 2016 #37
NoMoreRepugs Jun 2016 #45
Javaman Jun 2016 #23
arcane1 Jun 2016 #30
7962 Jun 2016 #38
Javaman Jun 2016 #42
arcane1 Jun 2016 #44
Javaman Jun 2016 #46
sarisataka Jun 2016 #24
RoccoR5955 Jun 2016 #31
JonathanRackham Jun 2016 #32
cstanleytech Jun 2016 #34
Cassiopeia Jun 2016 #33
JustinL Jun 2016 #36
tabasco Jun 2016 #40
In_The_Wind Jun 2016 #41

Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:17 AM

1. Well, that will make the police happy.

I cannot believe it was a 5-3 decision. Mr Justice Breyer has some 'splainin to do.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:25 AM

5. Justices aren't required to explain fully, but: Have you read the decision for the rationale?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:29 AM

6. Actuallly, reading it now.

... disagree so far, but I'm not a Justice. However, the fact that there was already an outstanding warrant on Strieff does pertain. But ultimately, isn't his arrest then dependent on the outstanding warrant and not the tainted evidence?

Pretty divisive ruling. I see only Ginsburg agrees with Sotomeyer's dissent, and only with 3/4 of that, while Kagen and Ginsburg combined for their own dissent. Somebody really doesn't trust the cops much, eh?

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:00 PM

35. I suspect what swayed them was that there was already a warrant for the guy.

If the police tried this with someone who doesnt have a warrant the evidence will still likely be suppressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:19 AM

2. Obvious....What if the police plant the evidence....

but it's OK now, I see.


Tikki

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tikki (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:19 AM

16. What an important question...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:21 AM

3. Yessirreee -

From scotusblog -

Wow - Part IV of Sotomayor's dissent is amazing: "By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal
status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged

So, how does this affect the case against Arpaio in AZ - papers please..

Are you kidding me?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asiliveandbreathe (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:25 AM

4. Agreed! This is a terrible ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asiliveandbreathe (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:59 AM

11. Yeah, I get the feeling she's a little pissed.

Even Ginsburg wouldn't add her name to part IV of that dissent.

I've felt that way about "stop and frisk" since it was initiated.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asiliveandbreathe (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:37 PM

26. Sotomayor is so right.

This is policy for a police state, not a free republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:36 AM

7. 5-3? Which one of the liberals jumped ship?

Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vdogg (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:57 AM

9. Mr Justice Breyer

The decision is that the "intervening circumstance" of a prior, valid arrest warrant for Strieff outweighs the damage done to the Fourth Amendment. The dissents are much more interesting than Mr Justice Thomas's decision.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vdogg (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:38 PM

27. The Clinton-nominated one n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:40 PM

28. Cute...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vdogg (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:43 PM

29. And true.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:39 AM

8. But

 

Any cop who does in fact break the law in order to obtain any evidence should be charged with and prosecuted for that illegality also...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old Codger (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:54 AM

21. Hahaha, that's a good one!

 

A cop, getting "charged with and prosecuted" for an "illegality" that infringes on the rights of a regular, poor, probably-criminal-anyway citizen? Quit with the jokes; you're killing me!

This decision...

k&r,

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:59 AM

10. We are moving closer to an "Ends justify the means" legal process. That's gonna be fun. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:11 AM

12. It'd be nice to know the name of the case, so we could see which it actually says

There is longstanding jurisprudence on the exclusionary rule, so that would be a major departure. Very bad coverage at source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:18 AM

14. from the summary

(a) As the primary judicial remedy for deterring Fourth Amend- ment violations, the exclusionary rule encompasses both the “primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure” and, relevant here, “evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality.” Segura v. United States, 468 U. S. 796, 804. But to ensure that those deterrence benefits are not outweighed bythe rule’s substantial social costs, there are several exceptions to the rule. One exception is the attenuation doctrine, which provides for admissibility when the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is sufficiently remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance. See Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586, 593. Pp. 4–5.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:18 AM

15. Here's the decision:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf

Sotomayer appears to be a little peeved.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:37 AM

18. thanks!

Looks like Thomas wrote one on his own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 05:56 PM

39. When I saw his name on it...

I wondered if Roberts passed it to him because the Chief Justice didn't see it as all that important a question.

Certainly I wouldn't want Thomas to write a decision on a parking ticket.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:14 AM

13. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-1373

Facts of the case
Utah Detective Douglas Fackrell received an anonymous tip about drug sales in a South Salt Lake residence, so he surveyed the area over a short period of time and speculated there was drug activity taking place. Fackrell saw Edward Joseph Strieff, Jr. leaving the residence and stopped him for questioning. During the stop, Fackrell discovered Strieff had an outstanding warrant and arrested him. During the lawful search after his arrest, Fackrell found methamphetamine and a drug pipe on Strieff’s person. The district court ruled that, although Fackrell did not have enough evidence to conduct an investigatory stop, the methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia obtained during the lawful search incident to arrest justified the admission of that evidence for trial. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling, but the Utah Supreme Court reversed and held that the evidence should have been suppressed because the warrant that was the basis for the arrest was discovered during an unlawful investigatory stop.

Question
Should evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest on an outstanding warrant be suppressed because the warrant was discovered during an investigatory stop later found to be unlawful?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:40 AM

19. Yes, I think so. That slope is definitely too slippery.

Also with the information the officer had while watching the house could have lead to a proper investigation that probably would have been more beneficial in the long run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:53 AM

20. By that description, it doesnt sound like an illegal stop to me.

 

He watches a residence & believes there is drug activity taking place. Likely, a lot of cars coming and going without staying more than a few minutes. So he pulls over one of the people leaving the residence. hey, the guy has drugs + a warrant.
That actually sounds like its legal to me.

I've managed properties for many years, some in "questionable" areas, and thats pretty much what the cops do. If they see a lot of traffic they're gonna bust it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:04 AM

43. Yeah, But

Your logic allows an end run around probable cause. The police can sit outside and eyeball anything they want. So they are watching a house or whatever and a person comes out and they say, Oops, we're watching this house because (fill in blank), here comes Joe Whosits, he could be doing (fill in blank), let's just stop him and see what comes up.

To me, the poison tree in this case is the original stop, from which a "legal search" could not arise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:33 AM

17. am I incorrect for assuming ANYONE can now be stopped because the law is now "What IF"...

there's an outstanding warrant, something illegal in that person's possession or inside their car... etc.???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreRepugs (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:55 AM

22. Not the way I see it.

 

See my post above. This wasnt some random stop. I think there are likely much better cases out there to bring this issue back up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:09 PM

25. 7962 - didn't the policeman assume he might find something amiss

when he made the stop? Because he sure didn't know for 100% positive that he would find something wrong - to me that's a 'what if' scenario - I understand in this case it happened to be a correct assumption. Isn't it similar to the NYC 'stop and frisk'
fiasco? Or is my memory really getting worse with age

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreRepugs (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:56 PM

37. But he had reason to assume it based on watching the house

 

If no stops are allowed unless there is no doubt, then there would be NO stops allowed.
If you're leaving a house that is being watched by the cops and they believe drugs are being sold or whatever, it seems reasonable to stop someone coming from that house. Now to go inside the house they should have to get a warrant.

Stop & frisk was much more vague.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #37)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:44 AM

45. guess I am looking at this from a slightly different angle/perspective...

Last edited Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:49 AM - Edit history (1)

The particular instance in question was being watched because of a suspicion of nefarious (love that word) activity being conducted there - apparently not KNOWLEDGE of such. Subjective nature of that suspicion opens a can of worms that for me would seem to lead to the individual officers judgment being the deciding factor - I think way above their pay grade. Someone going 80 in a 45 or handing money to someone on the street in exchange for a small bag witnessed by the officer eliminates the decision making process for the officer in question.


maybe this will help to understand the convoluted point I am trying to make...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sonia-sotomayor-police_us_57680301e4b0fbbc8beaf4ae?section=

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:00 PM

23. well, it's not like we have a 4th amendment anymore anyway. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:44 PM

30. Yeah, the War on Certain Drugs, and the invention of flushable toilets, killed it off.

 

The War on Certain Terror likes to dig it up and re-kill it now and then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:57 PM

38. How much do they think you can actually flush in these new toilets anyway....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 06:51 AM

42. um okay...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #42)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:27 AM

44. The presence of a toilet allows police to enter your home without warning

 

Else you might flush evidence away while they knock and say "please let us in".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #44)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:37 AM

46. Ahh thanks for clarifying. :) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:01 PM

24. The wording of the decision

Makes it sound like the standard for police is 'the end justifies the means'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:51 PM

31. Welcome to the Police States of Amerika!

 

Where the police have the ultimate rights over WE THE PEOPLE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:54 PM

32. Unpaid Parking Ticket?

"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," Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Elena Kagan filed a separate dissent.


An unpaid parking ticket is a crime? Major felony, I guess it justifies a full body cavity search. I better go back and pay all my old college parking tickets otherwise I can skip the co-pay on my colonoscopy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonathanRackham (Reply #32)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:57 PM

34. Thats merely her opinion though the court if presented with such a case down the road could

very well make an entirely different ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:34 PM

33. It's just the 4th Amendment.

At least they didn't say anything about that most important 2nd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:04 PM

36. the final paragraph of Sotomayor's dissent is incredibly powerful

We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by the police are "isolated." They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. See L. Guinier & G. Torres, The Miner's Canary 274-283 (2002). They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:57 PM

40. Might as well just take the Fourth Amendment off life support and institute full police powers

 

to stop you for any reason and kick down your door for any reason. The walls built into the Constitution to guarantee our liberty have been rubbled by rulers who wish to be monarchs and a cowardly, gullible populace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:51 PM

41. Sounding more and more like we the people are screwed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread