• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Says Police May Use Evidence Found After Illegal Stops

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 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.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in the 5-to-3 decision, said such searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment when the warrant is valid and unconnected to the conduct that prompted the stop.

While I am a strong supporter of the 4th Amendment, I agree with this decision. If there already is an existing arrest warrant, then IMHO, the subject is open to further scrutiny.

Discussion?

Article is here.
 
While I am a strong supporter of the 4th Amendment, I agree with this decision. If there already is an existing arrest warrant, then IMHO, the subject is open to further scrutiny.

Discussion?

Article is here.

You need proper probable cause to initiate. Otherwise, the government can just make massive illegal searches of all of us, scooping up everyone with an "arrest warrant", and doing who knows what with the rest of the information.

Government was restricted for a reason.
 
Can we please impeach these idiots already? ****. If the search was illegal the only reasonable path is to not allow anything they found. Otherwise you give merit to a violation of the rights of the citizen and motivate cops to violate the rights of citizens in the future.
 
Oh and btw, Thomas missed the point badly. The stop is what allowed them to find the information. If the way they found the information was illegal guess what that means? That ****ing idiot should retire.
 
While I am a strong supporter of the 4th Amendment, I agree with this decision. If there already is an existing arrest warrant, then IMHO, the subject is open to further scrutiny.

That's not even a valid argument. The only way they got the guy was breaking the law. Do you not see how that invalidates the evidence? It's all find and good they have a warrant, but the fact that they broke the law between then and finding the information is the important element of the equation. Meaning, they didn't find anything by getting a warrant, but they did find something by an action that broke the law.
 
While I am a strong supporter of the 4th Amendment, I agree with this decision. If there already is an existing arrest warrant, then IMHO, the subject is open to further scrutiny.

Discussion?

Article is here.

I can kinda see both sides, but it creates an issue where the police can stop you for anything, demand ID, chech for warrants, and if you got an unpaid ticket, legally search you. The illegal stop is in essence forgiven. Because of that, I kinda lean against this ruling.
 
You need proper probable cause to initiate. Otherwise, the government can just make massive illegal searches of all of us, scooping up everyone with an "arrest warrant", and doing who knows what with the rest of the information.

Government was restricted for a reason.

Probable cause or consent. Never, ever, EVER consent to search. And pay attention to how the officer words his question. Knee jerk reaction is to say no, so it will be worded "you dont mind if I search do you?" So you have to answer yes to stop the search.

I've only done it one time. I was target practicing in a legal shooting area in the national forest. For safety reasons all firearms stay in the back of the suburban and only one firearm and necessary ammo comes out at a time. I take kids as well as unfamiliar Adults shooting so I do this so I can focus and not worry about other people. A ranger rolled up on us and wanted to inspect my weapons. All I had out was a revolver at the time. He could tell by my targets I was shooting rifles and he asked to see them and I refused. He got stern with the "what are you hiding ?" Questions. I asked if he had a warrant knowing he didn't and he admitted so. I said the keys are in my pocket if you have probable cause. He said have a nice day and be safe and left. I was 100% legal in every aspect of the outing and this guy was just fishing me.
 
Probable cause or consent. Never, ever, EVER consent to search. And pay attention to how the officer words his question. Knee jerk reaction is to say no, so it will be worded "you dont mind if I search do you?" So you have to answer yes to stop the search.

I've only done it one time. I was target practicing in a legal shooting area in the national forest. For safety reasons all firearms stay in the back of the suburban and only one firearm and necessary ammo comes out at a time. I take kids as well as unfamiliar Adults shooting so I do this so I can focus and not worry about other people. A ranger rolled up on us and wanted to inspect my weapons. All I had out was a revolver at the time. He could tell by my targets I was shooting rifles and he asked to see them and I refused. He got stern with the "what are you hiding ?" Questions. I asked if he had a warrant knowing he didn't and he admitted so. I said the keys are in my pocket if you have probable cause. He said have a nice day and be safe and left. I was 100% legal in every aspect of the outing and this guy was just fishing me.
A good way to answer would be, "I do mind.", which covers either way of their phrasing.
 
You need proper probable cause to initiate. Otherwise, the government can just make massive illegal searches of all of us, scooping up everyone with an "arrest warrant", and doing who knows what with the rest of the information.

Government was restricted for a reason.

Probable cause is what's needed for an arrest. Reasonable suspicion is the requirement for a contact. Whether reasonable suspicion is established by someone coming out of a building where drug deals are known to occur is open to argument.

Actually, the exclusionary rule is a travesty. It benefits crooks and lawyers and no one else.
 
I read Utah v. Strieff, and I think Justice Thomas, as usual, got it exactly right. I was glad to see that Justice Breyer voted with the majority. The exclusionary rule is far from absolute, as the Court has made clear, and one of the exceptions to it applied in this case. The connection between the officer's unconstitutional stop and the evidence was so attenuated by the intervening discovery of a warrant for Strieff's arrest that suppression of the drug evidence was not justified. The majority correctly applied the three factors from Brown v. Illinois in its analysis.
 
It's actually a fairly complicated issue, and I would like to know more about the details of the judgement.

If a search is made after an illegal stop and something is found that has nothing to do with outstanding warrants, the evidence definitely should be inadmissible. Otherwise the door is opened for fishing expeditions, which is totally contrary to the law concerning warrants.

EDIT: I read the article. This was dead wrong.
 
You need proper probable cause to initiate. Otherwise, the government can just make massive illegal searches of all of us, scooping up everyone with an "arrest warrant", and doing who knows what with the rest of the information.

Government was restricted for a reason.

I'd have to look again, its kind of hard with the current topics in the news. But I thought I read somewhere that traffic stops were the #1 source of catching warrants. And you can be pulled over for anything, now it can even be fabricated. The very problem is this sets up the government to make massive illegal searches. Although I would argue that is what they were already doing.
 
Back
Top Bottom