While you may have been watching Empire Reruns or arguing with people in a Facebook group, you may have missed this important ruling handed down by the Supreme Court today.  Our Supreme Court just made the police force in this country a bit more powerful this afternoon.  This ruling states that in some cases, evidence of a crime can be used against a defendant – even if the police did something wrong OR even if the police illegally obtained this evidence.  

This has been a heated debate, with arguments made that this type of decision may encourage police to violate people’s rights.  Here is the case that sparked this debate:

After an ‘anonymous’ call to the police department in Salt Lake City alerting the police to potential drug related activities, this prompted the police to spy on the house and illegally question and stop Mr.  Joseph Strieff, the defendant.  When Joseph walked out of the house, police questioned him and ran his name through the police database, finding a “small traffic warrant,” aka (an unpaid parking ticket) which led to his arrest and an illegal search where they found methamphetamine in his pocket.

The question that arose was, if the valid warrant outweighed the illegal stop and search, because at the time Strieff lacked any reasonable suspicion that he had been violating any laws.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said:

“The officer’s actions were not a flagrant violation of the law. While Officer Fackrell’s decision to initiate the stop was mistaken, his conduct thereafter was lawful.”

However Justice Sotomayer said this decision is a “blow to Constitutional Rights”:

“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,” Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In her opinion that expressed only her own views, Sotomayor also described the “humiliations” of unjustified police searches and said that “people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny.” Sotomayer added, “this issue is especially significant because warrants are increasingly common.”

For example, after the Justice Department scrutinized police practices in Ferguson, Missouri, they found that 16,000 out of 21,000 Ferguson residents had active warrants, most of these were for traffic violations that would not typically result in jail time.  However, with this Supreme Court decision, officers have a higher chance of stopping someone with a minor traffic warrant, which can lead to one of these “illegal searches” that may hold up in court.

In the 5-3 decision handed down this afternoon, Sotomayer sums it up for the public by informing us, “if an officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant.”

Sources:

Associated Press

ABC News