TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/su ... .html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that evidence found by police officers after illegal stops may be used in court if the officers conducted their searches after learning that the defendants had outstanding arrest warrants.

Then there's this from Sotomayor in dessent.

“This case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time,” she wrote. “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.”

I think I'm going to need a little help on this one. How is this not a violation of the 4th amendment? The entire reason for the stop was illegal and the state admitted it. Why wasn't everything discovered after that thrown out. It's really bugging me that I find myself on the same side as Sotomayor. Please tell me that I'm wrong on this one.

It is a slippery slope, but it sounds like SCOTUS is separating the illegal stop, from the search after arrest for warrant as two incidences, not directly related, even though they occurred simultaneously, to the same individual. Sotomayer could be right in her dissension, but I think her follow up statements are not necessarily germane to the case, it sounds more like grandstanding for a cause.

If the individual, was known to the officer to have a warrant, then I don't believe further probable cause is needed to make the stop, but if he was just making up a reason to make the the stop then I agree, that the entire arrest, and subsequent search should be thrown out. This falls into the same category as an officer asking for proof of LTC, just because someone is OC, and then determining that they have a warrant. With no probable cause the case should be thrown out. JMHO. IANAL

It comes down to pretextual stops and justification of the means by the end.

If an illegal stop leads to finding out the person has warrants, should the subsequent findings of warrants or illegal items be admissible? Bottom line, does the end justify the means? Many of my cop friends think it does if it gets a bad guy off the streets.

As Jusme noted, I think Sotomayor's comments are over the top and typical of a politician masquerading as a judge. Nevertheless, I think the case was wrongly decided and constitutes a huge blow to the Fourth Amendment. (Yet another case/reason exemplifying the absolutely critical importance of the Second Amendment.) The long-standing Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine should have resulted in exclusion of all of the evidence. One must ask "where does it stop?" The answer is "at the point the people say 'no more!' "

Chas.

So is this latest wrinkle the equivalent of LE being given the O.K. to go on fishing expeditions?

"Hey, let's pull this guy over and see if he's breaking any laws..."

The wise Latina filled her dissent with non-sequiturs and political grandstanding. As a person of pallor I take offense to her insinuations in the dissent. However, the standard for stopping and searching people is already so weak as to be essentially meaningless, so I don't really see this decision making much difference.

ScottDLS wrote:. . . However, the standard for stopping and searching people is already so weak as to be essentially meaningless, so I don't really see this decision making much difference.

Sadly, I agree to a great extent in terms of application on the street, but this decision takes step toward extinguishing the Fourth Amendment. "Pretext stops" are legal and constitutional because there is reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has been committed. It's legal and constitutional for a LEO to stop a driver when the car he is driving at night does not have a license plate light. No one cares about the light, including the LEO, but constitutional safeguards are met. This case states one doesn't even need to have reasonable suspicion and that guts the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.

If it were limited to situations where an unlawful stop lead to the discovery of an outstanding warrant and evidence of a crime were found doing an "inventory" of the vehicle immediately subsequent to the arrest, then the damage would be limited. Unfortunately, I don't have such faith in the SCOTUS.

I must end with this caveat. I haven't read the entire case so I'm on thin ice, but if the opinion is as clear as has been reported in the media, then it's a bad decision.
Chas.

This is definitely a dangerous precedent. As Charles notes, we need the 2nd Amendment now more than ever.

One of the oft made statements on this forum is: If the police requested your approval to search your vehicle - you had the right to refuse them and you should refuse them. (assuming you were not breaking any laws)

With this latest decision, do law abiding citizens no longer have this right of refusal?

Even though you've broken no laws, LE can pull you over without cause, search your vehicle without your permission and pretty much treat you like a criminal.

If I'm correct, then we will be living in a police state.

The way I read the decision the stop without probable cause was illegal, but the evidence seized became admissible because the guy already had an outstanding warrant for which he was legally arrested.

I am thinking that the definition of an "illegal stop" is being twisted. If there is an outstanding warrant or anything illicit found, then "illegal stop" becomes "legal stop", right?
Otherwise, what's the punishment due to an agency for an illegal stop? We know the punishment for everything subsequent to the stop, whether legal or illegal....

I think the stop was still considered illegal. Your remedies are likely civil and determined by state law. If I read the law correctly, in Texas it is legal to resist a false arrest. Don't know if an "illegal" stop is a false arrest, but I for one wouldn't try to fin out...

ScottDLS wrote:I think the stop was still considered illegal. Your remedies are likely civil and determined by state law. If I read the law correctly, in Texas it is legal to resist a false arrest. Don't know if an "illegal" stop is a false arrest, but I for one wouldn't try to fin out...

Right, but your remedy is civil whereas an agency has a criminal case against you.

I believe they both should be criminal under the example case.

If it was an illegal stop in the first place, should the officer be required to ignore the warrant for the arrest and let the guy go?

I'm not making a statement one way or the other as I am still processing this In my head.

parabelum wrote:I am thinking that the definition of an "illegal stop" is being twisted. If there is an outstanding warrant or anything illicit found, then "illegal stop" becomes "legal stop", right?
Otherwise, what's the punishment due to an agency for an illegal stop? We know the punishment for everything subsequent to the stop, whether legal or illegal....

What is the initial reason for the stop? If it was "because I feel like it." That is an illegal stop.

Now, if this guy was well known to every single officer in town, he was well known to have a warrant for something, then any officer can stop him at any time for that warrant. So, if the cop could articulate that they observed the guy and was able to ID him based on several previous encounters, initiated a stop, and arrested him on the warrant... he is good.

If the initial stop was "just because" and it turned out that the guy had a warrant... not so much.

I have heard on the scanner in my little town before something like "52, can you check and see if Michael Smith still has that warrant?" "Confirmed, warrant is still active" "copy, i'll be traffic with him."