4Th Amendment Case will have Dramatic Ramifications for OTWs
Posted by Michelle Moquin on June 22nd, 2016
Good Morning!
Anonymous: Thanks for posting. I’m not sure if everyone clicked on your link but I thought another write was due to the importance of what is happening here. Here is an updated write from CNN:
Sotomayor in fiery dissent: Illegal stops ‘corrode all our civil liberties’
Washington (CNN)Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Monday issued a vehement dissent in a Fourth Amendment case — writing that the majority’s opinion sanctions police stops that “corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives.”
The fiery objection came on case where a Utah man challenged his arrest based on a stop that was later found to be unlawful. The 5-3 majority opinion, Sotomayor wrote, will have dramatic ramifications for law-abiding citizens targeted by police, especially minorities.
“It is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny,” she wrote. “For generations, black and brown parents have given their children ‘the talk’ — instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger — all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them.
“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.”
With four major decisions due in the next week, including cases on affirmative action, abortion and immigration, Sotomayor’s anger signals that what has been a quiet term since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia could get increasingly contentious.
Utah man charged after illegal stop
Utah man Edward Joseph Strieff Jr. was stopped by a police officer who was conducting surveillance on a house based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. After Strieff left the house, the officer detained him and ran his identification, finding an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation.
The officer then searched Strieff, finding methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia, and arrested him. Strieff challenged the conviction, saying the evidence came from an unlawful stop.
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.
Thomas portrayed the incident as the result of a couple “at most negligent” mistakes on the part of the officer, and downplayed its broader significance.
“There is no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct,” he wrote. “To the contrary, all the evidence suggests that the stop was an isolated instance of negligence that occurred in connection with a bona fide investigation of a suspected drug house.”
But Sotomayor said the case was anything but minor.
“Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: 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,” she 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.
Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in most of her dissent, laid out an argument that the opinion allows law enforcement broad latitude to violate Americans’ constitutional rights if they can find any small mark against them.
Sotomayor is the first justice of Hispanic heritage and has spoken extensively about how her personal experiences have influenced both her private and public life. But she took care Monday to separate that from her dissent and cite her “professional experience” as a prosecutor and judge.
She used visceral language to paint a picture of the invasion of privacy she believes is allowed by the decision.
“This Court has given officers an array of instruments to probe and examine you,” she wrote. “When we condone officers’ use of these devices without adequate cause, we give them reason to target pedestrians in an arbitrary manner. We also risk treating members of our communities as second-class citizens.”
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.’”
Race played a major role in Sotomayor’s dissent, although the man arrested in the case was white. The ramifications extend to all Americans but especially minorities, she wrote.
“The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner,” Sotomayor wrote.
Justice Elena Kagan also wrote a dissent joined by Ginsburg, while Justice Stephen Breyer joined the conservative panel of Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy. Kagan made a similar legal argument to Sotomayor, but used milder language to do so.
Thoughts? Blog me.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2016
“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
June 22nd, 2016 at 9:31 pm
Wake up and listen to the beast roar. OTWs like Sotomayor are the coming breed. Deal with it.
June 23rd, 2016 at 6:46 am
The house nigger (or should I be more modern and call him the “Django” nigger) has done it again. He wrote the majority(him & 4 white boys) opinion for racist bastards.
Strieff itself involves a fairly simple question of constitutional law. Typically, when police illegally stop an individual on the street without reasonable suspicion, any fruits of that stop—such as the discovery of illegal drugs—must be suppressed in court, because the stop was “unreasonable seizure” under the Fourth Amendment.
Allowing police to benefit from violating this rule means they will operate as if it is a police state and they can stop whomever they wish. The fucking white boys know that means OTWs, and so does the Django nigger.
If Karma is working right, that nigger will be out sans his motorcade and flagg. I would pay good money to see cops stop and frisk him the way they do blacks that look like him.
June 23rd, 2016 at 6:52 am
I don’t suppose the average OTW realizes how important this ruling is. Although most whites don’t give a fuck because they don’t think they will be adversely affected by this ruling.
I say, watch what you ask for because once that door towards a police state is opened, it is hell to shut. With the normally liberal Breyer joining with the stupid 4, this is a terrible decision.
June 23rd, 2016 at 7:01 am
Luis#2, yes Strieff did involve a simple principle of Constitutional Law involving a rule that the 4th Amendment acts to prevent police from illegal stops. Strieff gave the justices an opportunity to affirm this constitutional rule. But instead, Justice Stephen Breyer joined the court’s four conservatives to add a huge loophole to that long-established doctrine.
In an opinion written by the “Django nigger,” Justice Clarence Thomas, the court found that if an officer illegally stops an individual then discovers an arrest warrant—even for an incredibly minor crime, like a traffic violation—the stop is legitimized, and any evidence seized can be used in court.
The only restriction is when an officer engages in “flagrant police misconduct,” which the decision declines to define. What the fuck? If you are going to change the Constitution(I thought the Conservatives didn’t like legislating from the Bench), then you should at least define what is the exception that triggers the original Constitutional protection that you just stripped from the people.
June 23rd, 2016 at 7:05 am
This is a police state now. If you have a traffic ticket you haven’t paid you have just given up your right to not be stopped or harassed by the police. They can stop you and do whatever they want to you. If you complain, they just need to produce the warrant and Voila, the stop and the asskicking is legal.
June 23rd, 2016 at 7:08 am
New cop shows will be showing how cops can have the person they wish to stop can first be checked out by checking to see if he/she has an outstanding traffic ticket, if he does then they just stop the person for any reason, and “discover” he has an outstanding traffic warrant which will make the illegal stop now legal.
Police state!
June 23rd, 2016 at 7:14 am
Holy Shit, talk about legislating from the bench, these 5 fucks have just shredded the 4th Amendment. If a person has a warrant for anything out on him/her they have effectively surrendered their 4th Amendment right against unreasonable seizure.
This is open season on the people and especially OTWs.
June 23rd, 2016 at 7:18 am
Michelle, you are so right to call most men bastards. Only a majority of men would come up with a ruling like this. As Sotomayor put it, “…unlawful ‘stops’ have severe consequences much greater than the inconvenience suggested by the name.”
June 23rd, 2016 at 7:22 am
It takes a woman to make clear the enormity of a fuck-up by a man.
———————————————————
This Court has given officers an array of instruments to probe and examine you. When we condone officers’ use of these devices without adequate cause, we give them reason to target pedestrians in an arbitrary manner. We also risk treating members of our communities as second-class citizens.
Although many Americans have been stopped for speeding or jaywalking, few may realize how degrading a stop can be when the officer is looking for more.
The indignity of the stop is not limited to an officer telling you that you look like a criminal. … If the officer thinks you might be dangerous, he may then “frisk” you for weapons. 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.”
The officer’s control over you does not end with the stop. If the officer chooses, he may handcuff you and take you to jail for doing nothing more than speeding, jaywalking, or “driving [your] pickup truck . . . with [your] 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter . . . without [your] seatbelt fastened.”
At the jail, he can fingerprint you, swab DNA from the inside of your mouth, and force you to “shower with a delousing agent” while you “lift [your] tongue, hold out [your] arms, turn around, and lift [your] genitals.”
Even if you are innocent, you will now join the 65 million Americans with an arrest record and experience the “civil death” of discrimination by employers, landlords, and whoever else conducts a background check. And, of course, if you fail to pay bail or appear for court, a judge will issue a warrant to render you “arrestable on sight” in the future.
—————————————————————–
This is the Police State we have long dreaded.
June 23rd, 2016 at 7:25 am
As a black mother, this rings loud and clear to me.
For generations, black and brown parents have given their children “the talk”— instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger—all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them.
I hear so many white women say they are tired of blacks complaining about police harassment. When I hear it, I imagine making that piece of shit a black mother of about 5 minutes, then I shrug and say ” she ain’t worth it.”
June 23rd, 2016 at 7:30 am
Thank you Sonia Sotomayor for calling out the elephant in the room.
===========================================
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. 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.
We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are “isolated.” They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.
=================================================
She just described the dismantling of the 4th Amendment’s protection against misconduct by the police and the dire consequences it will have upon the OTWs in America.
June 23rd, 2016 at 7:32 am
Sotomayor’s dissent is not just an effective rebuttal to the Strieff majority (though it surely is that). It is also a brutal and necessary indictment of an increasingly conservative court’s repudiation of the Constitution’s most important safeguards against police misconduct.
It is also a reminder that this weakening of Fourth Amendment freedoms has especially dire consequences for America’s minority and low-income communities.
In the history of the United States Supreme Court, no justice has mixed personal empathy, professional wisdom, and legal acumen as brilliantly as Sonia Sotomayor just did. It’s too bad her atomic bomb of an opinion had to come in the form of a dissent to such an awful ruling..