Well, they already had that. But at the very least they couldn’t use what they found from illegal searches against you.
Now they can.
One can literally be pulled over for being black and wearing a flat brimmed hat in a BMW, and any evidence found can be used against you, including planted things you can’t prove weren’t yours.
Tragic is the correct word here. It’s the very opposite our courts were set out to work. Burden of proof is shifting to the tried rather than the state.
That’s not quite what the decision said. The decision was that the search was legal AFTER learning about the existence of an active warrant. The search occurred after that discovery. I may have issues with the officer keeping his job after making a stop without probable cause, but an active warrant does pretty much make one the property of the state.
That is completely contrary to everything I’ve read.
My understanding is you could be stopped, for no reason other than “whim” and as long as they found something the stop was justified and could be used against you.
Edit: IE: they could kick down your door and ransack your house, without a warrant, and as long as they found something they were good to go, and all evidence gathered is a-ok
I think it’s a combination of what the two of you are saying.
My understanding is they can stop you illegally and if after the fact they find out you have an outstanding warrant then any evidence they found during the illegal stop can be used against you.
Which makes the fact the LEO found the warrant moot, IMO. Had he known about the warrant before the stop, fine. Okay, no issues. But running the name for the warrant in the first place came from the “poisoned tree” imo.
I’m curious how this is squared with Miranda rights? So if you’re arrested because you have an outstanding warrant, aren’t read your Miranda rights, and then incriminate yourself can that be used against you? It seems like, yes, it can be. That makes no sense.
The stop without probable cause is the only problem, assuming laws regulating drugs and traffic are legitimate.
How should the discovery of an active warrant and drugs be handled after an illegitimate stop? Should the officer be disciplined, or be charged with abduction? Should the drugs be returned to the arrestee, or should the warrant be reactivated upon his release so that he can be legitimately found? I would hope the justices asked themselves some of those questions in reaching the decision, instead of just blindly siding with a government.
If checkpoints are legal, it’s hard to put up much of an argument against a stop that is at all related to an actual investigation.
The decision, I believe, was that the drugs were NOT found during the illegal stop, but rather during the search incident to arrest following the discovery of the warrant. The court ruled that the discovery of the warrant created a separate and legitimate cause for detention, if I’m not mistaken.