'Corroding Civil Liberties,' Supreme Court Codifies Unlawful Police Stops
"This case tells everyone...that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the dissent
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence recovered during illegal stops may still be used in court if police officers conducted their searches after learning that a defendant had an outstanding arrest warrant.
In a 5-3 ruling (pdf), the Supreme Court said such searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented, slammed the decision, writing in a sharp rebuke that the case "tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent...that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights."
Justices Elena Kagen and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.
The case is Utah v. Strieff, in which a police officer stopped defendant Edward Strieff because were later ruled to be inadequate; during the stop, the officer discovered Strieff had an outstanding warrant for a traffic violation and conducted a search--discovering methamphetamines and drug pipe. A district court later ruled that although Utah Detective Douglas Fackrell did not have the right to stop Strieff, the evidence collected during the search could be used in a trial.
In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote, "Most striking about the Court's opinion is its insistence that the event here was 'isolated,' with 'no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct.'" But in fact, she continued, "Nothing about this case is isolated."
Citing Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow and Ta-Nehisi Coates' Between the World and Me, among others, Sotomayor 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. It says that your body is subject to an 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 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.
Sotomayor also noted that 76 percent of the population of Ferguson, Missouri--which has been under the national spotlight since the 2014 police killing of unarmed black teen Michael Brown--has outstanding warrants against them. The unconstitutional policies endemic within the city's justice system have been widely reported.
"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 ACLU said on Twitter that it was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling and warned that it would have "terrible repercussions, [especially] for people of color." The organization also praised Sotomayor's "much-needed" dissent for highlighting the decision's racial impact.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence recovered during illegal stops may still be used in court if police officers conducted their searches after learning that a defendant had an outstanding arrest warrant.
In a 5-3 ruling (pdf), the Supreme Court said such searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented, slammed the decision, writing in a sharp rebuke that the case "tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent...that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights."
Justices Elena Kagen and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.
The case is Utah v. Strieff, in which a police officer stopped defendant Edward Strieff because were later ruled to be inadequate; during the stop, the officer discovered Strieff had an outstanding warrant for a traffic violation and conducted a search--discovering methamphetamines and drug pipe. A district court later ruled that although Utah Detective Douglas Fackrell did not have the right to stop Strieff, the evidence collected during the search could be used in a trial.
In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote, "Most striking about the Court's opinion is its insistence that the event here was 'isolated,' with 'no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct.'" But in fact, she continued, "Nothing about this case is isolated."
Citing Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow and Ta-Nehisi Coates' Between the World and Me, among others, Sotomayor 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. It says that your body is subject to an 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 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.
Sotomayor also noted that 76 percent of the population of Ferguson, Missouri--which has been under the national spotlight since the 2014 police killing of unarmed black teen Michael Brown--has outstanding warrants against them. The unconstitutional policies endemic within the city's justice system have been widely reported.
"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 ACLU said on Twitter that it was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling and warned that it would have "terrible repercussions, [especially] for people of color." The organization also praised Sotomayor's "much-needed" dissent for highlighting the decision's racial impact.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence recovered during illegal stops may still be used in court if police officers conducted their searches after learning that a defendant had an outstanding arrest warrant.
In a 5-3 ruling (pdf), the Supreme Court said such searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented, slammed the decision, writing in a sharp rebuke that the case "tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent...that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights."
Justices Elena Kagen and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.
The case is Utah v. Strieff, in which a police officer stopped defendant Edward Strieff because were later ruled to be inadequate; during the stop, the officer discovered Strieff had an outstanding warrant for a traffic violation and conducted a search--discovering methamphetamines and drug pipe. A district court later ruled that although Utah Detective Douglas Fackrell did not have the right to stop Strieff, the evidence collected during the search could be used in a trial.
In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote, "Most striking about the Court's opinion is its insistence that the event here was 'isolated,' with 'no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct.'" But in fact, she continued, "Nothing about this case is isolated."
Citing Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow and Ta-Nehisi Coates' Between the World and Me, among others, Sotomayor 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. It says that your body is subject to an 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 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.
Sotomayor also noted that 76 percent of the population of Ferguson, Missouri--which has been under the national spotlight since the 2014 police killing of unarmed black teen Michael Brown--has outstanding warrants against them. The unconstitutional policies endemic within the city's justice system have been widely reported.
"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 ACLU said on Twitter that it was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling and warned that it would have "terrible repercussions, [especially] for people of color." The organization also praised Sotomayor's "much-needed" dissent for highlighting the decision's racial impact.