Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Surprised by Clarence Thomas' take on this I thought he was a strict constitutionalist in the image of Scalia.
Quote:
WASHINGTON – 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.
.....
Justice Clarence Thomas said for the court that the officer's actions were not a flagrant violation of the law. "While Officer Fackrell's decision to initiate the stop was mistaken, his conduct thereafter was lawful," Thomas wrote.
.....
"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.
Yes, a thread was started about this yesterday, to which I contributed a link to the actual decision, so that it could be intelligently discussed. As such, it quickly died.
I did read the decision yesterday, and here are some thoughts.
First, the facts (from memory):
Law official is watching a house in which he believes dealing of drugs is going on.
Officer witnesses the 'respondent' (as named in suit, but 'suspect' hereafter) leave (but not enter) the house in question. Upon leaving suspect walks over the a very nearby convenience store. As suspect enters the parking lot, officer stops suspect and demands to see his driver's license, and asks if he knows 'what's going on' in said house. Suspect complies with the driver's license.
Officer then calls in name. Is quickly notified that suspect has an outstanding warrant (traffic ticket). Officer then arrests suspect on said warrant, searches suspect, uncovering illegal drugs in the pockets. Suspect then arrested for that, too.
Now, it is acknowledged by all that the officer's action in stopping the suspect and demanding his driver's license was illegal. Officer had no probable cause to suspect the suspect of breaking the law. All he (officer) observed is suspect leaving a house, and walk to a parking lot to go to a store.
Officer did suspect that said house was a drug den. Officer admitted that his suspicions were aroused by neighbors reporting people pulling up to the house, entering, and then leaving a very few minutes later. However, in this case, officer did not see the suspect enter the house, only leave, and had no idea how long suspect had been in the premises, or even if suspect owned the house.
Suspect, of course, filed a motion to have the drugs found in his pockets tossed out, and the attendant charges, saying that said drugs were the 'illegal fruits' of an illegal stop. In Mapp v. Ohio (a Supreme Court case) the Court had said that evidence found from illegal police acts cannot be admitted into evidence.
The Court (Justice Thomas writing, joined by four other Justices) concluded that 1) the initial stop was illegal; 2) yet the evidence was not 'illegal fruit' since the officer found said evidence after he arrested the suspect for the outstanding traffic warrant.
The reasoning got beyond me at this point. The Court concluded that while the stop was illegal, it was ok, as part of said illegal stop, to determine if the suspect had any valid arrest warrants, and, if so, it was then proper to arrest said suspect and to then search suspect's pockets. The Court described some of the exceptions to the 'illegal fruit' doctrine, admitted that two of the three applied, but that one (the concept I don't really understand) did not apply, and so the evidence was admissible.
Needless to say, the dissenting Justices disagreed. I recommend reading the second dissent (Ginsburg), and not Justice Sodomayar (unless you have time to read both). Ginsburg pretty well stuck to the law and the consequences of this ruling, while Sodomayar argued more emotionally.
It does strike me as circular reasoning by Justice Thomas. He does correctly note two exceptions to the illegal fruit doctrine, which is pretty settled law.
However, the other concept (accentuation) is new to me; it was not taught in law school so long ago.
As the dissenting Justices noted, in our country there are literally hundreds of thousands (even millions) of outstanding arrest warrants for traffic tickets and such. The dissenters could not understand why, if the initial police action was illegal (as it was in this case, even Thomas realized) it could then be excused if said suspect had an arrest warrant.
So! Person walking down the street. Police now can pull them over, for no probable cause, and demand ID, and then run ID to see if there is an arrest warrant (meaning, you are not free to depart). If arrest warrant, then the illegal stop is ok, and police may search you. If no arrest warrant, police pat you on your head and send you off, with you happy that you weren't beaten into submission. We must face it that few people would take the time and trouble to file an official protest with the authorities.
I don't quite understand this decision, according to the majority there are cases that proceed regardless of the fact that it followed an illegal search. That is news to me.
A person "walking down the street"? No I don't think so. A subject hanging around a drug house, lurking in a neighborhood at night, etc can and should be stopped and checked.
Don't want to get hassled by the police? don't associate with criminals or be involved in criminal activity or hang around suspected drug houses
all the more reason when cops show up to your door, do not open the door, have their dispatch call you, and tell them if they have a warrant to break down the door and make sure they can see your hands.
opening the door to a cop is one of the worst things you can do.
if you did not call them, then you do not even have to open the door.
A person "walking down the street"? No I don't think so. A subject hanging around a drug house, lurking in a neighborhood at night, etc can and should be stopped and checked.
Don't want to get hassled by the police? don't associate with criminals or be involved in criminal activity or hang around suspected drug houses
A person "walking down the street"? No I don't think so. A subject hanging around a drug house, lurking in a neighborhood at night, etc can and should be stopped and checked.
Don't want to get hassled by the police? don't associate with criminals or be involved in criminal activity or hang around suspected drug houses
They ALL agreed the stop/search was illegal. You want to do away with the 4th amendment?
Yes, basically it sets up police having the right to stop you for any reason they see fit, at any time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
