Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court ruling on stop and search without cause?

CW5 Andrew J. Foreman — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:04:30 -0400

Please read the ruling of the Supreme Court of an unwarranted stop that discovered an arrest warrant. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/21/supreme-court-ruling-on-police-powers-draws-scathing-dissents-from-justices.html?intcmp=hplnws

Supreme Court ruling on police powers draws scathing dissents from justices | Fox News

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.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 12:05 PM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:05:16 -0400

I haven't heard of this. I disagree, but I need to read more into it. 4th amendment right.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 21 at 2016 12:06 PM

PO1 John Miller — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:06:30 -0400

How the f--k is this not a violation of the Fourth Amendment???

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made Jun 21 at 2016 12:13 PM

SGT Edward Wilcox — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:13:50 -0400

I have long been an opponent to "stop & frisk" and other such abuses of the system. The police used to need "probable cause", which then became "reasonable suspicion". Now, it appears, the police don't need any reason at all.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Jun 21 at 2016 12:25 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:25:02 -0400

What was the cause for the stop? Did he have a KNOWN criminal history? Was he a KNOWN drug seller or user? Had been stopped for a traffic violation? What was the UNLAWFUL stop! Doesn't matter the color of the skin! If I seen a purple people eater that I have arrested before for trafficking in drugs and I see him and he dropped a piece of paper, that is littering! stop, to write a ticket. Run him and he has a warrant for anything then he is arrested. Once arrested for the warrant then it is automatic search, (weapons, drugs) NOT against the 4th amendment! In most states if you bring weapons or drugs in to a facility of the penal system you would then catch another charge. SO wouldn't that then fall on the officer for improper search and then be thrown out for him NOT doing his job?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2016 12:42 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:42:52 -0400

I understand what the majority opinion author is arguing but it's not in keeping with the Constitution.
The most interesting aspects I found were:
1. The conservative Justices found in favor of Utah.
2. The split was all male Justices sided with Utah and all females dissented.
3. 80% of Ferguson, Missouri residents have warrants!?!?!
4. I found myself siding with Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan!
My world has been turn upside down.

Response by SSgt Ryan Sylvester made Jun 21 at 2016 12:49 PM

SSgt Ryan Sylvester — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:49:27 -0400

Here in Detroit, police have a "Stop and Frisk" allowance where they can stop anyone on the street and frisk them for weapons (and any other bits that may be evidence to a crime). Why? Because we have a serious problem regarding felons carrying weapons illegally. And there's a major heroin problem on the streets, as well. Not that I've seen it done or anything, but I'm all for giving the police a little more power to do their jobs without having to witness a crime in progress or searching for a suspect after the fact. And I don't hear much about them abusing this power by stopping and searching every Tom, Dick and Harry walking around Detroit. What I do know is that there are far too many murders going on downtown, and a good majority of the ones that are caught are people who shouldn't actually be carrying a firearm at all.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jun 21 at 2016 2:00 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:00:21 -0400

Cool, profiling has become legal. Which only proves that in the early 70's when we Mexican teenagers drove to Beverly Hills and the cops stopped us and escorted out of Beverly Hills after a sound beating, they were right.

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Jun 21 at 2016 2:12 PM

SFC J Fullerton — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:12:14 -0400

DUI "checkpoints" have been a tactic used by the police as loophole to this for years. How is legal to stop every vehicle under the suspicion the operator may be driving intoxicated, then run an ID check for warrants or issue citations for other infractions such as expired plates, illegal window tint, open container, etc?

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Jun 21 at 2016 5:12 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:12:30 -0400

As a private citizen I don't like the idea of being stopped and searched without probable cause. However when I was doing the stopping I had less problem with it. Sort of depends on which side of the stop you are on.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jun 21 at 2016 7:15 PM

Capt Tom Brown — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 19:15:31 -0400

This is the kind of thing one expects to be protected against by the Constitution. A person would expect such treatment from LEO in any other foreign country which did not have a Constitution or a Bill of Rights. Go into Mexico or any Central American county etc and see what can happen. This gives LEO a free pass to stop and search anyone because they 'looked suspicious'. Not good at all.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jun 22 at 2016 12:28 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:28:13 -0400

It’s a weird position i hold on this.. On one hand, I think a guilty person should he led accountable for their crime.. If the LEO has pulled them over for not using a turn signal long enough prior to changing lanes .. but dash cam shows the driver did use it for the required distance prior to turning. I don't want the wanted pedophile, murder, rapist, AWOL SM being let go...
But I also do not want LEO’s emboldened to conduct fishing expeditions.. .. Stopping a citizen just because and looking to investigate for a potential crime…not for probable cause or reasonable suspension, but because they are on the road after midnight..or driving with the windows down..or a million other things that are NOT illegal

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2016 2:11 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 02:11:23 -0400

I found the majority opinion disappointing. The dissent identified some wicked second and third order effects that seem likely to be prescient, particularly when you see how civil forfeiture has similarly gone off the rails due to perverse incentives.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2016 12:01 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:01:37 -0400

The 4th Amendment is quite clear.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So if there was no probable cause, then the police had no right to stop and do a name search on the defendant. The defendant should have refused to answer any questions (which is his right, per the Fifth Amendment). Why this even got to the USSC boggles the mind.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2016 3:27 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:27:20 -0400

This is a huge expansion of police powers and will encourage some police to stop people for no reason and see if they can find a reason to arrest them.

Response by SSgt Boyd Welch made Jun 22 at 2016 4:53 PM

SSgt Boyd Welch — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:53:41 -0400

As a former police officer, I've seen my share of instances where true probable cause was lacking. I've seen cars stopped on pretense of "no turn signal, burned out light bulb, low tire..."etc just to get a "whiff" of the inside of the vehicle. I wish I could say that my experience proves that ethical standards are high for most municipal and county law enforcement but unfortunately not. If you want to make an officer mad, make him wait to get a warrant before he searches your car. It's the legal process but if there is a hard nose by the book judge in your district, the officer knows that he won't get the warrant on suspicion. Our right to privacy and constitutional protections are evaporating before our eyes. Since I've worn that uniform, I appreciate the dangerous job that officers do but not every person they come into contact with is the enemy....

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2016 5:39 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:39:31 -0400

In 1977, I had one of the first five in-car computer terminals on the Kansas City Police Department. Without any reasonable suspicion (Terry v. Ohio) or probable cause (Spinelli v. United States, at the time), I would run license plates or people I knew by sight all shift long as I cruised the city. Frequently, my "sixth sense" would hit a Bingo. I'd stop the car or person and perform whatever duty I deemed appropriate dependent upon the warrant information. What I did then is, in principle, no different than the dictum of this new case. It's always been about how one "wrote the report!!!"

Response by PO3 Chris Scheide made Jun 22 at 2016 7:20 PM

PO3 Chris Scheide — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:20:14 -0400

It's a little muddier than that article makes it appear. First paragraph of the actual ruling shows the guy leaving a house suspected of drug sales. Read it here:

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

14-1373_83i7.pdf

H609mF`8Sg8æz8)^H30hÅY7 (§ Ê ~ÿ endstream endobj 791 0 obj /Metadata 88 0 R/PageLabels 781 0 R/Pages 783 0 R/StructTreeRoot 127 0 R/Type/Catalog endobj 792 0 obj /Font/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/Rotate 0/StructParents 0/Tabs/S/Type/Page endobj 793 0 obj stream hÞTmOÛ0þ+þ84¿;ZFÒ`tcâC(^-MªÄhðïwg§mQkß«ïêçe0bYJlÉ5ìX#as kExrp@¿^yÙ:8Na§fgí3A'KGüIæsïhþÃCÈ¶SWyZMòågWÌæpÆýäk ¡ã2µD*:+?Õn4H.Æow/òñÃäÞ7$Îëºë_{Ñ]NÀó|áèxt|:ç§sz^7«ØFO}^Óa5+a4ónñX§ÆP)nèÞaüQÞ:Ù~ÿq5ïjF...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2016 8:13 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:13:39 -0400

Based on the facts recited in the opinion there was no search without cause. There was cause for a search because of the valid warrant for Strieff's arrest.

There was a Fourth Amendment violation, but that doesn't mean everything gets thrown out. Strieff still has rights he can enforce regarding his initial unlawful stop.

Try to step back from the specific facts here; the minor traffic offense leading to the warrant, the discovered contraband. Try to just reduce the scenario to its minimal essential elements. 1. There was an unlawful stop. 2. There was a valid arrest warrant discovered by police. 3. The individual was not searched except after and because of his arrest under the existing warrant. Now ask, if the police stumble upon someone, based on no suspicion, and find a valid warrant outstanding against him, should they be able to arrest? Police can arrest pursuant to valid warrants, so the answer appears to be yes.

"But the initial stop was unlawful!" True (though this point was not litigated; is it reasonable to ask a person who just left a suspected drug dealer's house a few questions?), but let's test out the opposite outcome with slightly different facts. What if the police conduct a brief but unlawful investigatory stop and then discover an arrest warrant for the speed individual because he is wanted for murder, or terrorism, or conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism? Should they be required to let the wanted suspect go free because of the initial unlawful stop? If so, for how long must they allow the suspected murderer or terrorist or conspirator to go free before arresting him? Long enough to allow him to dump any contraband or evidence of any crime he might be carrying? Should the underlying charge of murder or terrorism or conspiracy be discharged? We should not require police to let wanted people go. Whether we should have outstanding arrest warrants for minor traffic violations is another issue, but that problem lies with legislatures, not courts.

"But couldn't police abuse this method of arrest and search?" Sure, and abuse shouldn't be allowed. No abuse was found here. Don't be fooled into thinking that police searched him before finding the valid warrant, or that any pretext for this event was shown. Justice Thomas addressed the consequences police face of they do this as a scheme or pretext.

The police have an awful lot of power, and they should. They are after all the police. Power is always susceptible to abuse. But we shouldn't require that valid powers be taken away because of the possibility of abuse, we should be mindful of abuse.

Strieff can probably sure for his unlawful detention, and maybe he can get some money out of it. Maybe the arresting officer should be disciplined or fired. Maybe Utah shouldn't have arrest warrants for minor traffic offenses. But if we're going to have arrest warrants for everything from murder to speeding then we should not let wanted people escape arrest except for calculated, deliberate police misconduct.

Response by SGT Stacey Nelson made Jun 22 at 2016 8:24 PM

SGT Stacey Nelson — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:24:41 -0400

Is this for everyone or is this just for American Muslims?

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jun 22 at 2016 8:57 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:57:43 -0400

Really bad call. So we have a judicial system that is overburdened as is, where folks can't get a decent lawyer not due to incompetence, but caseload, and now if you get stopped, the cop can add to this? So once again we skip due process, and head straight to jail...over something as minor as a parking ticket. In DC if it was possible to write the cops the same tickets they give out, there wouldn't be much of a force left. They'd all be tied into the judicial system waiting their turns as their careers are ruined.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2016 9:48 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:48:15 -0400

The big problem is that now the police don't need "probable cause" they just need "whoops I made a mistake when I pulled you over"... They ( law-enforcement ) need to know their jobs and play by the rules...

Response by SPC Kortney Kistler made Jun 22 at 2016 10:55 PM

SPC Kortney Kistler — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:55:05 -0400

You mean to tell me nobody on here has never been stopped for a BS reason? I have been stopped for made up reasons as many times as legit reasons. I've even been ticketed by a lying cop and fought it and lost. I have argued with cops and dared them to take me to jail for the whatever BS they stopped me for. There is a lot of rotten cops out there. If you don't know your rights, you don't have. If they found the drugs in his pocket, he's a dumbass. If they found the drugs in his car, it's his own dumbass fault for letting them search the car.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2016 11:23 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 23:23:42 -0400

Strange that conservatives agreed to this.

Response by SGT Tony Clifford made Jun 23 at 2016 1:50 AM

SGT Tony Clifford — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:50:36 -0400

The constitution isn't ambiguous on this. The forth amendment clearly prohibits an illegal detainment. There was no reasonable suspicion of a crime. This is obviously an illegal search. Anything found while conducting an illegal search is inadmissible also any evidence that resulted from information illegally obtained is likewise inadmissible. There's a whole term for it. They refer to this as fruit of the poisoned tree. A truly bad call that flies in the face of the constitution and the justices duty to uphold it.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Jun 23 at 2016 9:40 AM

SFC Joseph Weber — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:40:29 -0400

What about all that fruit of the poisoned tree stuff? Undermine the bill of rights, whats to stop more decisions like these?

Response by 1LT John Heddens made Jun 23 at 2016 9:43 AM

1LT John Heddens — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:43:27 -0400

The "War on Drugs" is what butt-f**cked the 4th Amendment. All of the DA's and elected Judges want to appear "tough on crime", so they have been wiping their ass with the Bill of Rights since the early 80's. Once you give anyone a little taste of power, it absolutely snowballs.

I remember when they introduced Seat-Belt law legislation in my home state of Indiana. At first, they literally said they would not ever pull anyone over strictly for a seat-belt violation, and people would only get cited if they were caught not wearing a seat-belt during another infraction. Now look! They have Seat-Belt check points! They literally have Seat-Belt checkpoints!

I'm a pretty conservative dude, but this is ridiculous. Just the other day, Sen. McCain argued for the FBI being able to spy into anyone's internet search history- without a warrant. I seriously cannot wrap my head around why anyone would want these talent-less suits in Washington running their lives (not directed at McCain, he's a true bro normally).

I can't even say I want liberal judges on the bench, because they'll just rape the 2nd Amendment! So we are screwed either way! Conservative = bye bye to 4th Amendment, Liberal = bye bye to 2nd Amendment.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2016 10:38 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:38:28 -0400

I am conflicted on this one. In principle, I agree that if a felony has been convicted, a mis-step by police should not allow evidence to be thrown out, possibly letting a violent criminal go free on a technicality.

However, I feel this ruling is not to protect instances as I just described, but to give a free pass on warrantless searches.

On a deeper level, I completely disagree with the ruling because it is one more thing that can be abused. It is one more right we are losing.

What worries me more is that we are one vote away from warrantless browser searches. This is very disheartening.

I find myself breaking from republicans lately on these matters more and more. This is the party that was supposed to protect our rights above all else.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Jun 24 at 2016 10:37 AM

SFC Joseph Weber — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:37:25 -0400

Now it's the car, when will it be our homes?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2016 4:58 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Jul 2016 16:58:36 -0400

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2017 8:03 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Feb 2017 20:03:35 -0500

I support the Constitution as written, so no need to expound about which amendments. They need to do their job correctly and follow the law, and giving them this leeway opens the door for abuse by any that might choose to do so. We are expected to maintain license, registration, and insurance so it's reasonable to expect them to abide by the law as well. It's a bit different but they already have Terry stops/searches per Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and if they truly are for officer safety I'm all for those because LEO's have a tough and dangerous job. If they are using Terry as a reason to frisk someone under the guise of safety while the real purpose is to find some contraband, then that's a stretch. Why? Because you can tell by looking if someone has a pistol or knife in their front pocket, provided it's in plain view. Unless they are looking for the world's tiniest pistol or knife then playing touchy feely with the lower edge of the pocket is not to find a weapon, but rather to find contraband that is now admissible due to discovery under Terry. Give LEO's what they need to stay safe and make reasonable arrests but only to a point that still upholds rights of the accused.