Supreme Court divided over warrants discovered in illegal stops

[Disir]

The arrest of Edward J. Strieff Jr. outside a Utah convenience store led to two diametrically opposed responses on the U.S. Supreme Court this past spring.

To the majority, the arrest was essentially no big deal based on a rare police misstep. To the dissenters, the decision could lead to a widespread increase of police stopping individuals on the street, permitting them to arrest anyone with an outstanding warrant and subjecting them to a search.

In late 2006, police in the community of South Salt Lake City, Utah, received an anonymous tip reporting “narcotics activity” at a house. Police Detective Douglas Fackrell conducted intermittent surveillance of the home over the course of a week, and he observed a steady stream of visitors who arrived and left in short order, which raised his suspicions that drugs were being dealt from the house.

At some point, according to court papers, the officer decided to stop and question the next person to leave the house. When Strieff left the home, Fackrell followed along before detaining Strieff in the parking lot of a 7-Eleven, identifying himself, and asking the man what he was doing at the house.

Fackrell could not remember Strieff’s response when he testified later, but the officer also asked for the man’s identification, which he relayed to a police dispatcher for a warrant check.
Supreme Court divided over warrants discovered in illegal stops

And here is the opinion.
UTAH v. STRIEFF

So, I think I am going to need more coffee and time to read through the opinion.

 

[KokomoJojo]

But the Court has also held that, even when there is a Fourth Amendment violation, this exclusionary rule does not apply when the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent benefits.


Yup scotus, as usual making shit up as they go,

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation

Thats what the dumb asses in 1790 wrote and they skipped the most important part so I will correct it for them. Dumb asses.


The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, provided the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent benefits.

There thats better, now our rights are 'really' secure!