Supreme Court Says Police May Use Evidence Found After Illegal Stops

[Theodarzna]

The sad part, is that there are people who fall for the illusion that having a Police State will keep us "safe".

It will entirely be used as a tool for controlling dissidents and getting rid of enemies. Anyone and everyone can be harassed by the police and the legal system if they challenge the wrong power clique.

[Eviscero]

This empowers police to make more stops based on racial profiling which may lead to more incidents of needless escalation and more deaths.

The overall impact of this decision may outstrip the 'niche' cases to which it applies.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really, because unlawful stops are still unlawful. They still open a department up to civil rights actions, lawsuits, open up officers to administrative punishments, etc.

When these start happening, let me know.

[Theinquisition]

One justice said it will give minorities a hard time cause a lot of minorities in cars have warrants, child support, failure to appear, etc.

well, that's too bad I guess.

I don't see an issue here. the warrant is separate from the stop.

[Revi]

And how the fuck is it okay for a cop to do something "illegal" and it somehow bites YOU in the ass?

Him doing something illegal should bite him in the ass. In this case the illegal stop.
You doing something illegal should bite you in the ass. In this case whatever they found evidence of in your car.

Him doing something illegal should not absolve you of all legal guilt for the crime you committed. Which is what happens when evidence is thrown out if it was obtained after an illegal stop.

I have one.

The evidence can be used against you, but the cop also gets charged and faces jail time and loss of job for breaking the law.

Absolutely. I think cops breaking the law on duty should be taken way more seriously than it is now. They are public servants and know the law far better than us and are supposed to uphold it, yet somehow they seem to get away with breaking the law on the job too often.

[IIamaKing]

One justice said it will give minorities a hard time cause a lot of minorities in cars have warrants, child support, failure to appear, etc.

Oh well.

10chairs

[Theinquisition]

Well, I suppose that is what she would write. Never mind any plain reading of whether it's illegal or not, the important thing is that it's an opportunity to identity politics.

I'd love to read the actual written dissent.

Blah blah blah, white privledge...blah blah blah, systematic racism..blah blah blah rape culture.

sigh....

don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[Tempguy]

Him doing something illegal should bite him in the ass. In this case the illegal stop.
You doing something illegal should bite you in the ass. In this case whatever they found evidence of in your car.

Him doing something illegal should not absolve you of all legal guilt for the crime you committed. Which is what happens when evidence is thrown out if it was obtained after an illegal stop.



Absolutely. I think cops breaking the law on duty should be taken way more seriously than it is now. They are public servants and know the law far better than us and are supposed to uphold it, yet somehow they seem to get away with breaking the law on the job too often.

What I was getting at is how he does something illegal and only you get punished. But I know you see my point so all good.

[oplawlz]

"if the officers conducted their searches after learning that the defendants had outstanding arrest warrants.
" makes this a non-issue imo.

[Glnger]

I'd love to read the actual written dissent.

Blah blah blah, white privledge...blah blah blah, systematic racism..blah blah blah rape culture.

sigh....

don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

the crime of not being white in one of the most racially diverse countries. I'm sure this wont end up bad 5 years from now when cops use this ruling as justification to just pull people over and summarily do searches. The same "this isn't a slippery slope" arguments were made going into the "war" on drugs and look how that fucking turned out.

stop giving corruptible people more power with hardly any oversight, it won't turn out good.

ask the residents of Arizona how well they like border stops on their highways, inside of their own state.

[Theinquisition]

the crime of not being white in one of the most racially diverse countries. I'm sure this wont end up bad 5 years from now when cops use this ruling as justification to just pull people over and summarily do searches. The same "this isn't a slippery slope" arguments were made going into the "war" on drugs and look how that fucking turned out.

stop giving corruptible people more power with hardly any oversight, it won't turn out good.

Oh lord, spare me the indignation.

the ruling is about using evidence in the vehicle in reference to PREVIOUS warrants issued against the driver.

Sorry if the rest of the law abiding public want to get criminals off the street.

[MasterOfNone]

Right. That's why I said I'd support this kind of stance if they took strong and serious measures against cops abusing their authority in that way.

Unlawful stops by an officer should be a major strike. Like a "three strikes and you're fired, with cause, and will never work in a police force again" major. Three strikes allowed just because mistakes DO happen, but three of the same mistake? That's deliberate.

Shouldn't even matter if they find out after the fact that the guy's got a warrant. Pull over a car for no reason, and it turns out that the guy driving's got a warrant for five murders? You got a murderer off the street. And that's strike 1. Because you never should've pulled him over, and getting lucky isn't an excuse.

sooooooooooooo, keeping crime from happening with tips etc. is against what you think up to three strikes. what a very odd stance for you to take on this given your history of posting.

[Glnger]

have you not been paying attention? everyone is a "criminal" its just a matter of "discretion" on the part of law enforcement to not lock everyone up for jaywalking offenses. Law enforcement has proven time again that they are incapable of doing this. Again, see the "war" on drugs. And sadly it seems what shade of non-white you are makes a huge difference in how you are treated by law enforcement.

[Endus]

sooooooooooooo, keeping crime from happening with tips etc. is against what you think up to three strikes. what a very odd stance for you to take on this given your history of posting.

I'm having trouble deciphering what you tried to say here.

If cops have a tip they're following, that's not an unlawful stop; that tip is cause. I've always been pretty consistent on supporting a relatively left-libertarian position, where the focus is on protecting personal liberties.

[purebalance]

Was pretty surprised this didn't get a 4-4 gridlock. I'm somewhat fine with this ruling, if it's only applied to the weird/complicated cases that this originated from.

The title is not what the ruling is though as what's stated in the first line is clearly something that is rational. At first I thought this basically throws out 90% of DUI law which states that the officer needs a reason to pull you over ie actually breaking traffic law not just swerving. However what this says is that if you're pulled over illegally by a cop AND THEN the cops finds out you had a warrant, they are free to search your car. I was under the impression having a warrant was grounds to pull someone over.

[Theinquisition]

have you not been paying attention? everyone is a "criminal" its just a matter of "discretion" on the part of law enforcement to not lock everyone up for jaywalking offenses. Law enforcement has proven time again that they are incapable of doing this. Again, see the "war" on drugs. And sadly it seems what shade of non-white you are makes a huge difference in how you are treated by law enforcement.

well you could always move to a non-white country and see how that works out for ya. Maybe they will protect your civil liberties better.

[purebalance]

have you not been paying attention? everyone is a "criminal" its just a matter of "discretion" on the part of law enforcement to not lock everyone up for jaywalking offenses. Law enforcement has proven time again that they are incapable of doing this. Again, see the "war" on drugs. And sadly it seems what shade of non-white you are makes a huge difference in how you are treated by law enforcement.

Weird since in 2015 more white people were killed by police even when accounting for population differences.

[Eviscero]

the warrant is separate from the stop.

The warrant is legal, the stop wasn't (until today).

[Glnger]

Weird since in 2015 more white people were killed by police even when accounting for population differences.

oh, that would be interesting since there is no national record keeping of deaths by police. I'm sure you have a legit source for this....
I mean, that's why you posted it... wait, oh right.

[Theinquisition]

The warrant is legal, the stop wasn't (until today).

Not shedding any tears on my end.

[Deletedaccount1]

Just a little more liberty gone like that.