SCOTUS Says Cops Can Use Evidence Found After Illegal Stops

I really get hung up on it too, if it makes you feel any better.

3 Likes

I didn’t say I agree with him on everything. And not to highjack, but you certainly cannot ‘just kick’ an opiate addiction but I know usmcccds to be a good guy. So maybe it’s your approach? I have been able to disagree with him and not get into a bitch fight with him.
I am certain, if I explained the science and biology behind opiate addiction, how people get into it, how it’s a major issue in the armed forces with soldiers who have been injured in battle and had long recoveries; I am certain we could have come to an understanding with out issue. He’s not an unreasonable guy, but if you insult him or are trite and dismissive, you will get what you give. I do not know him to give it first. That’s all I am saying.

Maybe you should give him another try, but be reasonable in your approach.

And for my part, I apologize for being trite with you. I protect my ‘friends’, even my internet ones. Even if they do not need protecting. It’s a fault.

That’s a good question. Somebody presented the caveat that and illegal stop can result in search, and the search be valid, if the person in question has a warrant for their arrest. Well, if you forget to pay a speeding ticket, even if it was an honest mistake, they put a bench warrant out on you. Which is the same as any other type of warrant save for they are not actively searching for you. But if you get pulled over, they take your ass to jail, or can and probably will.

And shit happens. You take your mom somewhere and she throws her pain killers into your glove box and forgets to grab them when you drop her off and you get pulled over and searched, you can go to jail for possession. Or f your friend does it, or mother-in-law, etc. And becuse of the court ruling, you can get illegally pulled over, have a bench warrant for something you may not even remember you did, have your car searched illegally and get busted for somebody elses pills being in your car, get convicted and have a record all because you had a menial ticket for something so small you forgot in you busy ass life.

Let’s say you rolled through a stop sign in a neighborhood and a cop was waiting their. He gives you a ticket, you forget about it. You’re fiance just left you. you messed up a project at work, and your dishwasher quit and you don’t have the money to pay for it. You are really busy, you forget about the ticket you shouldn’t have even gotten. Then you have a bench warrant out for your arrest. Somewhere in that time, you take your friend or family member somewhere and they forget their prescription in your car. You are on your way back to return it to them because they need it and some cop pulls you over for nothing, you when 47 in a 45, he didn’t like the way you looked, whatever. You have a bench warrant for that silly ticket and he searches your car and finds the prescription. So now the cop arrests you for the bench warrent and charges you will illegal possession of drugs.
And now, because of this court ruling, you can get convicted of possession from the illegal stop and search, all the while your only real crime is getting caught in some very common, but unfortunate life circumstances and you could go to jail, lose your job and your life and have a record, for nothing. Very minor offenses that deserve nothing more than a fine for a late ticket. That’s what this judgement has opened the door to. Making people going through a bad stretch in their lives, criminals.

Hell, this happened to a friend of mine who worked at a car dealership. He was driving a dealership car on their request, wearing their uniform and he got pulled over. The cop arrested him for stealing the car! It took about an hour before the cop finally called the dealership who verified his story. Then the cop finally let him go, but it could have turned out much worse if the cop actually took him to jail without verifying his story and he could have. He had that power.

This ruling is bad no matter what. It take innocent mistakes and makes them life changing events and that’s not right. People make innocent mistakes. This ruling can turn those mistakes into horrible events that affect the rest of your life and it’s totally at the discretion of the officer.

I know most cops are pretty cool and wouldn’t do that. But it only takes one dick to ruin your life and now they have a supreme court ruling siding with dick cops.

Yeah, you have to give the officer consent, but the officer does not have to tell you that. And the officer can threaten you with jail, even if it’s a lie. They are allowed to lie.

‘Probable cause’ can simply be his word against yours. All he has to do is say he ‘smelled marijuana’ or something like that.

Officer believes search is necessary for his protection? His word against yours, again.

Or it could have been as simple as a DUI.

If you get the rare asshole cop, he can do anything he wants and there is nothing you can do about it. And this ruling made such a thing even worse.

Again, most cops would not do such a thing. Most are cool people. But it only take one asshole to ruin your life. And I have been harassed by that kind of cop before. Stopped and detained for NOTHING. Held there for over an hour or more because he claimed I was running over mailboxes, which I didn’t do and was extremely evident since the car I was driving had a brand new paint job. If I hit anything it would have been completely obvious. And that’s only one of my experiences and I am white! At least I look white. Technically I am hispanic.

Just a couple of things: 47 in a 45 zone is probable cause to make a traffic stop; an officer can’t legally take someone to jail just for driving a car that is not in that person’s name(unless you left something out, it seems like that is what you are saying).

It may be that we need to reconsider the massive web of rules we have created in this country(or at least allow each state to run itself).

1 Like

Take an extraordinarily deep breath Pat…of course usmccds is a good guy. I was talking about the guy he quoted…Verne

Easy there big fella.

Again, read the post I quoted…carefully.

You could have put this all in one post…

I think most laws, barring the Constitution, and the Constitution of each state, needs to be reviewed and re-voted on every 10 years. Seriously, why do we still have horse and buggy laws? I could see in Amish country but most places don’t need it. Laws made in the 1890’s probably do not apply anymore. If not 10 at least every 20 years.

Pat, I’ve been here since 01’…you have been here a long time as well. If you care about your internet friends as much as you say, you should know I am always cordial with folks here. With a VERY small group of exceptions.

You could have read my original post before you mounted your high horse, and defended something that needed not your defense.

Please chill… I am not on any high horse and if I offended you I apologize it was not my intention…

You didn’t…carry on.

Opening of the SCOTUS opinion, verbatim:

“Syllabus
UTAH v. STRIEFF
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH
No. 14–1373. Argued February 22, 2016—Decided June 20, 2016
Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a South
Salt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug activity.
The number of people he observed making brief visits to the
house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants
were dealing drugs. After observing respondent Edward Strieff
leave the residence, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby
parking lot, identifying himself and asking Strieff what he was doing
at the house. He then requested Strieff’s identification and relayed
the information to a police dispatcher, who informed him that Strieff
had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer
Fackrell arrested Strieff, searched him, and found methamphetamine
and drug paraphernalia. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence, arguing
that it was derived from an unlawful investigatory stop. The
trial court denied the motion, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Utah Supreme Court reversed, however, and ordered the
evidence suppressed.”

This is the crux of your argument here, and I posit that it is wrong.

The stop would have been legal if the officer had known in advance a) who this man was and b) that he had a warrant out.

Alternatively the stop would likely have been legal had he a) known a man named Strief had a warrant out for him and b) thought the guy looked like Strief enough to ask him for his ID.

Neither of those things was the case.

That’s all well and good, but the idea it was an unlawful stop is a relatively recent one(the “OMG, there goes the Bill of Rights!” reactions were a bit silly). There is little doubt the officer’s actions would have been deemed lawful in the 18th or 19th centuries.

I can’t agree that an officer’s subjective state of mind at the time of a stop takes precedence over fact.

And, again, how would this be fixed? Void the arrest, pay the arrestee for the time he had to spend in jail due to the unlawful arrest, release him, and reactivate the arrest warrant? Unless the discovery of the warrant created a lawful detention, that would seem necessary.

That is silly, we are talking about how the law views the stop today. Not 300 years ago–and I would assume you acknowledge that our state of jurisprudence has evolved since then in many ways, as it is undisputable. Also, I don’t know that it is an easy case to prove that the officer’s actions would be lawful in the 19th century–besides the fact that this wouldn’t even be an issue as a) there were no government issued IDs to citizens then b) there were no laws against meth, heroin, or cocaine then c) warrants weren’t issued for traffic citations then d) the police weren’t militarized then e) citizens likely would have been openly armed and told the cop–had he asked–to go to hell instead of ID himself.

These are all reasons why the comparison to 300 year old police actions are wrongheaded.

“slippery slope”

You do know that the the slippery slope argument is a classic logical fallacy? You need to have a reason you see it growing to bigger things. The fact is if they had ruled that an illegal stop invalided a valid warrant that is a real slippery slope. That ruling flat out would be a get out of jail card if the warrant was for murder and the body was sitting next to him

-That’s certainly possible(I have no idea how likely, as I tend to doubt that people change much over time). I WOULD like to know what happened in Strieff’s case, regarding the request. That is something I have not seen yet. Did the officer ask Strieff to speak with him and then request his ID? Did the officer demand Strieff ID himself? Did Strieff make any effort not to hand over his ID when requested? Did Strieff ask whether he was free to go, or being detained?

Most importantly, as I have asked a few times so far, how would Strieff be “made whole” again following his supposedly-unlawful arrest on a lawfully issued arrest warrant? If the drugs are “fruit of the poisonous tree,” then Strieff’s arrest itself is as well.

The majority of reasoning humans do–and especially politcally oriented–is inductive. Slippery slopes may be used and invoked validly as opposed to fallaciously depending on the establishment of a warrant for the position in question. “Non-fallacious usage acknowledges the possibility of a middle ground between the initial condition and the predicted result, while providing an inductive argument for the probability of that result versus a middle-ground one, usually based on observation of previous comparable circumstances. This form of the argument is prevalent, under the actual name slippery slope, in United States First Amendment case law, for example.” from Wikipedia.

And again “The fallacious sense of “slippery slope” is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In a non-fallacious sense, including use as a legal principle, a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome.”

Um, that’s what I was saying.