http://www.wesh.com/politics/sotomayor- … s/40139626
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that courts need not throw out evidence of a crime even if the arresting police officer used unlawful tactics to obtain it.
Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court majority agreed that South Salt Lake police officer Douglas Fackrell did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Strieff as he exited a house being watched for drug activity. But once Fackrell radioed in and found that there was an outstanding warrant on Strieff for a traffic violation, he was able to arrest and search him, and the discovery of the drugs was legitimate, the justices ruled.
"By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time," she added. "It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged."
While the court held that the initial stop was unconstitutional, due to lack of reasonable suspicion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that overturned the Utah Supreme Court and held that because the arrest warrant was valid, the evidence was admissible.
This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants -- even if you are doing nothing wrong," Sotomeyer 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," she added.
She continued that being stopped on the street is more than a small "indignity." She said the officer can search a citizens' bag, order him or her to stand "helpless," perhaps even conduct a "frisk."
"This involves more than just a pat down. As onlookers pass by, the officer may 'feel with sensitive fingers every portion of (your) body. A thorough search (may) be made of (your) arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about the testicles, and entire surface of the legs down to the feet.'
So now is it the old standard of " an officer typically needs "reasonable articulable suspicion." has been been thrown out? It used to be the lowest standard in the criminal system - Do we now have Zero Standards?
The old and now obsolete standard was; . "Whether an arrest is valid depends upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it-whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the person to be arrested had committed or was committing an offense." (Beck v. Ohio)
"A consensual police encounter is often anything but. Cops have guns, and handcuffs, and the power to arrest you or make your life difficult if you are rude or uncooperative. Judicial assumptions are flawed about the reactions of reasonable, innocent people during ‘consensual’ encounters with police.” - Alisa L. Smith
“sole purpose was to fish for evidence”,
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
An extension of the exclusionary rule established in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920). This doctrine holds that evidence gathered with the assistance of illegally obtained information must be excluded from trial. Thus, if an illegal interrogation leads to the discovery of physical evidence, both the interrogation and the physical evidence may be excluded, the interrogation because of the exclusionary rule, and the physical evidence because it is the “fruit” of the illegal interrogation. This doctrine is subject to three of important exceptions. The evidence will not be excluded (1) if it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity; (2) its discovery was inevitable; or (3) if there is attenuation between the illegal activity and the discovery of the evidence.
Now Poisoned fruit is OK according to USSC-disgusting
by deecoleworld2 years ago
What are your thoughts on Police Brutality? Especially about the recent death of Walter Scott
by ptosis21 months ago
If a police officer says that I'm "not under arrest" and that I'm being "detained"yet I'm handcuffed behind my back. That to me seems that I'm under arrest - not detained. I've seen a lot...
by Mike Russo19 months ago
It's because of the "Use of Force Model" that has been adopted by law enforcement from the military Many cops across the country have been trained in this use of force model. It works like...
by Paul Wingert6 years ago
I crossed into Iowa from Illinois last week on Interstate 80 and I was confronted with orange signs posted by the sheriff department (I think it was the Sherriff or higway patrol) stating they were searching for drugs...
by Brian7 years ago
I recently saw a report on the news that the GOV in the United States is trying to pass a law that would give the police the right to arrest anyone that is video taping them while they are working.The dumb thing about...
by GA Anderson14 months ago
I stumbled across this John Stossel video piece.*Just click image to viewI am not a big fan of links with no explanation, but on this one, 'ya gotta' watch the video to get the point of the OP. But I will offer a...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.