Un-Biased USSC? Sotomayor 'Racially Charged' Dissent Read Like A 'Black Lives Manifesto'

[easyt65]

Sotomayor Dissent Reads Like ‘A Black Lives Matter Manifesto’

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor submitted a racially-charged dissent in a Fourth Amendment case on Monday, which commentators hailed as a “Brown/Black Lives Matter manifesto.”

Cops illegally stop a WHITE male suspected of being involved in drug activity. During the stop the police find out he's got a warrant out for him and meth in his pocket.

The High Court ruled 5-3 that the arrest, and the evidence obtained during the arrest, were legitimate, even if the initial stop was not. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito. Sotomayor filed a peppery dissent, joined in part by Justice Ginsburg.

REMEMBER, THE INDIVIDUAL IN THIS CASE IS WHITE...


“The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner,” she wrote. “But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. 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.” ... At various points, she cites “The Souls of Black Folk,” by W. E. B. Du Bois, Michelle Alexander, a law professor who has written extensively on over incarceration, and the more radical works of James Baldwin and Ta-Nehisi Coates."


Sotomayor used a case about a 'bad stop / good bust' case involving a WHITE plaintiff to rail against non-existent racism in this case, going on a rant about blacks and racism in America.



Hey Soto, take your meds today or just felt the need to use the bench to advocate Black Lives Matter's agenda?

Sotomayor Dissent Reads Like ‘A Black Lives Matter Manifesto’

 

[bucs90]

We tried to warn America about OBAMA. The cancer he has infected America with since his election will take decades to undo....and that's only if the population votes 180 degrees the opposite direction.

And based on polls....they want more Obama.

 

[Compost]

Uh, the Wise Latina has spoken.

 

[Contumacious]

Sotomayor Dissent Reads Like ‘A Black Lives Matter Manifesto’

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor submitted a racially-charged dissent in a Fourth Amendment case on Monday, which commentators hailed as a “Brown/Black Lives Matter manifesto.”

Cops illegally stop a WHITE male suspected of being involved in drug activity. During the stop the police find out he's got a warrant out for him and meth in his pocket.

The High Court ruled 5-3 that the arrest, and the evidence obtained during the arrest, were legitimate, even if the initial stop was not. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito. Sotomayor filed a peppery dissent, joined in part by Justice Ginsburg.

REMEMBER, THE INDIVIDUAL IN THIS CASE IS WHITE...


“The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner,” she wrote. “But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. 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.” ... At various points, she cites “The Souls of Black Folk,” by W. E. B. Du Bois, Michelle Alexander, a law professor who has written extensively on over incarceration, and the more radical works of James Baldwin and Ta-Nehisi Coates."


Sotomayor used a case about a 'bad stop / good bust' case involving a WHITE plaintiff to rail against non-existent racism in this case, going on a rant about blacks and racism in America.



Hey Soto, take your meds today or just felt the need to use the bench to advocate Black Lives Matter's agenda?

Sotomayor Dissent Reads Like ‘A Black Lives Matter Manifesto’

The police state dingleberries never cease to amaze me

“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,” Sotomayor wrote in the opening paragraph of her response to Utah v. Strieff, which the court decided in a 5-3 vote

 

[martybegan]

Sotomayor Dissent Reads Like ‘A Black Lives Matter Manifesto’

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor submitted a racially-charged dissent in a Fourth Amendment case on Monday, which commentators hailed as a “Brown/Black Lives Matter manifesto.”

Cops illegally stop a WHITE male suspected of being involved in drug activity. During the stop the police find out he's got a warrant out for him and meth in his pocket.

The High Court ruled 5-3 that the arrest, and the evidence obtained during the arrest, were legitimate, even if the initial stop was not. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito. Sotomayor filed a peppery dissent, joined in part by Justice Ginsburg.

REMEMBER, THE INDIVIDUAL IN THIS CASE IS WHITE...


“The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner,” she wrote. “But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. 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.” ... At various points, she cites “The Souls of Black Folk,” by W. E. B. Du Bois, Michelle Alexander, a law professor who has written extensively on over incarceration, and the more radical works of James Baldwin and Ta-Nehisi Coates."


Sotomayor used a case about a 'bad stop / good bust' case involving a WHITE plaintiff to rail against non-existent racism in this case, going on a rant about blacks and racism in America.



Hey Soto, take your meds today or just felt the need to use the bench to advocate Black Lives Matter's agenda?

Sotomayor Dissent Reads Like ‘A Black Lives Matter Manifesto’

The police state dingleberries never cease to amaze me

“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,” Sotomayor wrote in the opening paragraph of her response to Utah v. Strieff, which the court decided in a 5-3 vote

If the guy didn't already have an outstanding warrant, the search should have been thrown out. With the outstanding warrant even a broken tail light or jaywalking could have led to an ID check and a subsequent ID as being on an outstanding warrant, and thus a search.

 

[RandallFlagg]

We tried to warn America about OBAMA. The cancer he has infected America with since his election will take decades to undo....and that's only if the population votes 180 degrees the opposite direction.

And based on polls....they want more Obama.

Obama is (and always has been) a divider. Obama despises America and in particular, white America. He has said as much in his book "Dreams from my Father" now, I don't know if he was referring to his real Father, Frank Marshall Davis - a radical communist, or his "phony" Father, Obama Sr, a radical communist.

Frankly, as a black man, I am sick to death of this clown. He has sat race relations back 30 years with his bullshit. I am sick to death of his "apologies" for our country and I am sick to death of his constant lying.

It will take this country YEARS to overcome the damage this asshole has done to this country, unless that bitch Clinton us somehow elected. In that case, we are finished as a country, a society and a world power.

 

[Contumacious]

Sotomayor Dissent Reads Like ‘A Black Lives Matter Manifesto’

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor submitted a racially-charged dissent in a Fourth Amendment case on Monday, which commentators hailed as a “Brown/Black Lives Matter manifesto.”

Cops illegally stop a WHITE male suspected of being involved in drug activity. During the stop the police find out he's got a warrant out for him and meth in his pocket.

The High Court ruled 5-3 that the arrest, and the evidence obtained during the arrest, were legitimate, even if the initial stop was not. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito. Sotomayor filed a peppery dissent, joined in part by Justice Ginsburg.

REMEMBER, THE INDIVIDUAL IN THIS CASE IS WHITE...


“The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner,” she wrote. “But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. 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.” ... At various points, she cites “The Souls of Black Folk,” by W. E. B. Du Bois, Michelle Alexander, a law professor who has written extensively on over incarceration, and the more radical works of James Baldwin and Ta-Nehisi Coates."


Sotomayor used a case about a 'bad stop / good bust' case involving a WHITE plaintiff to rail against non-existent racism in this case, going on a rant about blacks and racism in America.



Hey Soto, take your meds today or just felt the need to use the bench to advocate Black Lives Matter's agenda?

Sotomayor Dissent Reads Like ‘A Black Lives Matter Manifesto’

The police state dingleberries never cease to amaze me

“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,” Sotomayor wrote in the opening paragraph of her response to Utah v. Strieff, which the court decided in a 5-3 vote

If the guy didn't already have an outstanding warrant, the search should have been thrown out. With the outstanding warrant even a broken tail light or jaywalking could have led to an ID check and a subsequent ID as being on an outstanding warrant, and thus a search.

No dice.


"But a basic principle lies at the heart of the Fourth Amendment: Two wrongs don’t make a right. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392 (1914). When “lawless police conduct” uncovers evidence of lawless civilian conduct, this Court has long required later criminal trials to exclude the illegally obtained evidence. Terry, 392 U. S., at 12; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 655 (1961)."

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting

 

[Snouter]

Sotomayor is a lying, delusional idiot. And one ugly SOB.

 

[Picaro]

Sotomayor Dissent Reads Like ‘A Black Lives Matter Manifesto’

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor submitted a racially-charged dissent in a Fourth Amendment case on Monday, which commentators hailed as a “Brown/Black Lives Matter manifesto.”

Cops illegally stop a WHITE male suspected of being involved in drug activity. During the stop the police find out he's got a warrant out for him and meth in his pocket.

The High Court ruled 5-3 that the arrest, and the evidence obtained during the arrest, were legitimate, even if the initial stop was not. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito. Sotomayor filed a peppery dissent, joined in part by Justice Ginsburg.

REMEMBER, THE INDIVIDUAL IN THIS CASE IS WHITE...


“The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner,” she wrote. “But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. 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.” ... At various points, she cites “The Souls of Black Folk,” by W. E. B. Du Bois, Michelle Alexander, a law professor who has written extensively on over incarceration, and the more radical works of James Baldwin and Ta-Nehisi Coates."


Sotomayor used a case about a 'bad stop / good bust' case involving a WHITE plaintiff to rail against non-existent racism in this case, going on a rant about blacks and racism in America.



Hey Soto, take your meds today or just felt the need to use the bench to advocate Black Lives Matter's agenda?

Sotomayor Dissent Reads Like ‘A Black Lives Matter Manifesto’

What's the surprise here? If she weren't a virulently racist La Raza Aztlan nationalist Obama or any other Democrat wouldn't have nominated her in the first place.

 

[320 Years of History]

What’s the Point of a Supreme Court Dissent?

The citations noted in the OP are all in the same paragraph of the dissent, a paragraph that appears in a section that begins, "Writing only for myself, and drawing on my professional experiences..." The content you and the Daily Caller draw attention to is nothing more than Justice Sotomayor basically editorializing on the matter, not giving her's or anyone else's jurist's take on it. She presents her editorial commentary after providing a structured argument, counterargument and rebuttal, which is the content of the dissent.

What is there to say about it? Justices get to say what they want to say about a case. It's part of the privilege of being a SCOTUS justice. Make of it what you want, but they get to have their personal opinions expressed if they are of a mind to share them.

The paragraph to which the OP refers is presented below.

This case involves a suspicionless stop, one in which the officer initiated this chain of events without justification. As the Justice Department notes, supra, at 8, many innocent people are subjected to the humiliations of these unconstitutional searches. The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner. See M. Gottschalk, Caught 119–138 (2015). But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. See M. Alexander, The New Jim Crow 95–136 (2010). 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. See, e.g., W. E. B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk (1903); J. Baldwin, The Fire Next Time (1963); T. Coates, Between the World and Me (2015).
​

The dissent is some 5-7 "standard" pages long. I suggest you read it before you rely on the input of the Daily Caller.

In addition to the bit you cited, Justice Sotomayor also writes:

It is tempting in a case like this, where illegal conduct by an officer uncovers illegal conduct by a civilian, to forgive the officer. After all, his instincts, although unconstitutional, were correct. But a basic principle lies at the heart of the Fourth Amendment: Two wrongs don’t make a right. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392 (1914). When “lawless police conduct” uncovers evidence of lawless civilian conduct, this Court has long required later criminal trials to exclude the illegally obtained evidence. Terry, 392 U. S., at 12; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 655 (1961). For example, if an officer breaks into a home and finds a forged check lying around, that check may not be used to prosecute the homeowner for bank fraud. We would describe the check as “‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 488 (1963). Fruit that must be cast aside includes not only evidence directly found by an illegal search but also evidence “come at by exploitation of that illegality.” Ibid.

This “exclusionary rule” removes an incentive for officers to search us without proper justification. Terry, 392 U. S., at 12. It also keeps courts from being “made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such invasions.” Id., at 13. When courts admit only lawfully obtained evidence, they encourage “those who formulate law enforcement polices, and the officers who implement them, to incorporate Fourth Amendment ideals into their value system.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 492 (1976). But when courts admit illegally obtained evidence as well, they reward “manifest neglect if not an open defiance of the prohibitions of the Constitution.” Weeks, 232 U. S., at 394.

Applying the exclusionary rule, the Utah Supreme Court correctly decided that Strieff ’s drugs must be excluded because the officer exploited his illegal stop to discover them. The officer found the drugs only after learning of Strieff ’s traffic violation; and he learned of Strieff ’s traffic violation only because he unlawfully stopped Strieff to check his driver’s license.

The court also correctly rejected the State’s argument that the officer’s discovery of a traffic warrant unspoiled the poisonous fruit. The State analogizes finding the warrant to one of our earlier decisions, Wong Sun v. United States. There, an officer illegally arrested a person who, days later, voluntarily returned to the station to confess to committing a crime. 371 U. S., at 491. Even though the person would not have confessed “but for the illegal actions of the police,” id., at 488, we noted that the police did not exploit their illegal arrest to obtain the confession, id., at 491. Because the confession was obtained by “means sufficiently distinguishable” from the constitutional violation, we held that it could be admitted into evidence. Id., at 488, 491. The State contends that the search incident to the warrant-arrest here is similarly distinguishable from the illegal stop.

But Wong Sun explains why Strieff ’s drugs must be excluded. We reasoned that a Fourth Amendment violation may not color every investigation that follows but it certainly stains the actions of officers who exploit the infraction. We distinguished evidence obtained by innocuous means from evidence obtained by exploiting misconduct after considering a variety of factors: whether a long time passed, whether there were “intervening circumstances,” and whether the purpose or flagrancy of the misconduct was “calculated” to procure the evidence. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 603–604 (1975).

These factors confirm that the officer in this case discovered Strieff ’s drugs by exploiting his own illegal conduct. The officer did not ask Strieff to volunteer his name only to find out, days later, that Strieff had a warrant against him. The officer illegally stopped Strieff and immediately ran a warrant check. The officer’s discovery of a warrant was not some intervening surprise that he could not have anticipated. Utah lists over 180,000 misdemeanor warrants in its database, and at the time of the arrest, Salt Lake County had a “backlog of outstanding warrants” so large that it faced the “potential for civil liability.” See Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 (2015) (Systems Survey) (Table 5a), online at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf (all Internet materials as last visited June 16, 2016); Inst. for Law and Policy Planning, Salt Lake County Criminal Justice System Assessment 6.7 (2004), online at Request Rejected cjac/ resources/SaltLakeCJSAfinal.pdf. The officer’s violation was also calculated to procure evidence. His sole reason for stopping Strieff, he acknowledged, was investigative—he wanted to discover whether drug activity was going on in the house Strieff had just exited. App. 17.

The warrant check, in other words, was not an “intervening circumstance” separating the stop from the search for drugs. It was part and parcel of the officer’s illegal “expedition for evidence in the hope that something might turn up.” Brown, 422 U. S., at 605. Under our precedents, because the officer found Strieff’s drugs by exploiting his own constitutional violation, the drugs should be excluded.
​

The preceding is the dissenters' assessment of the case, the dissenting argument. Find something in there that's racially driven. You won't. What you will find is a resounding defense of yours and my 4th Amendment rights.

The remainder of the dissent that precedes Justice Sotomayor's "editorial" directly takes on the arguments presented in the majority opinion, presenting the dissenters' counterargument and rebuttal to it.

 

[martybegan]

Sotomayor Dissent Reads Like ‘A Black Lives Matter Manifesto’

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor submitted a racially-charged dissent in a Fourth Amendment case on Monday, which commentators hailed as a “Brown/Black Lives Matter manifesto.”

Cops illegally stop a WHITE male suspected of being involved in drug activity. During the stop the police find out he's got a warrant out for him and meth in his pocket.

The High Court ruled 5-3 that the arrest, and the evidence obtained during the arrest, were legitimate, even if the initial stop was not. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito. Sotomayor filed a peppery dissent, joined in part by Justice Ginsburg.

REMEMBER, THE INDIVIDUAL IN THIS CASE IS WHITE...


“The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner,” she wrote. “But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. 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.” ... At various points, she cites “The Souls of Black Folk,” by W. E. B. Du Bois, Michelle Alexander, a law professor who has written extensively on over incarceration, and the more radical works of James Baldwin and Ta-Nehisi Coates."


Sotomayor used a case about a 'bad stop / good bust' case involving a WHITE plaintiff to rail against non-existent racism in this case, going on a rant about blacks and racism in America.



Hey Soto, take your meds today or just felt the need to use the bench to advocate Black Lives Matter's agenda?

Sotomayor Dissent Reads Like ‘A Black Lives Matter Manifesto’

The police state dingleberries never cease to amaze me

“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,” Sotomayor wrote in the opening paragraph of her response to Utah v. Strieff, which the court decided in a 5-3 vote

If the guy didn't already have an outstanding warrant, the search should have been thrown out. With the outstanding warrant even a broken tail light or jaywalking could have led to an ID check and a subsequent ID as being on an outstanding warrant, and thus a search.

No dice.


"But a basic principle lies at the heart of the Fourth Amendment: Two wrongs don’t make a right. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392 (1914). When “lawless police conduct” uncovers evidence of lawless civilian conduct, this Court has long required later criminal trials to exclude the illegally obtained evidence. Terry, 392 U. S., at 12; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 655 (1961)."

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting

That's just one case she is referencing. There are others that quantify the level of official "misconduct" when determining if evidence should be suppressed. The officer didn't just randomly pick him off the street to be questioned. and the search was only conducted when the suspect was found to have outstanding warrants.

Now if he would have been searched FIRST, then a warrant was found, that would be different.

 

[easyt65]

She didn't rail on and on about 'one case'. She went off about the 'generic' argument of the 'plight of blacks' and 'how they are treated' in this country. This was a simple case involving a WHITE MAN, and she took the opportunity to give her 'speech' about racism.

A female Latino arguing about racism against blacks in a trial involving a white man...that's so ridiculous it's borderline funny.

 

[Contumacious]

What’s the Point of a Supreme Court Dissent?

The citations noted in the OP are all in the same paragraph of the dissent, a paragraph that appears in a section that begins, "Writing only for myself, and drawing on my professional experiences..." The content you and the Daily Caller draw attention to is nothing more than Justice Sotomayor basically editorializing on the matter, not giving her's or anyone else's jurist's take on it. She presents her editorial commentary after providing a structured argument, counterargument and rebuttal, which is the content of the dissent.

What is there to say about it? Justices get to say what they want to say about a case. It's part of the privilege of being a SCOTUS justice. Make of it what you want, but they get to have their personal opinions expressed if they are of a mind to share them.

The paragraph to which the OP refers is presented below.

This case involves a suspicionless stop, one in which the officer initiated this chain of events without justification. As the Justice Department notes, supra, at 8, many innocent people are subjected to the humiliations of these unconstitutional searches. The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner. See M. Gottschalk, Caught 119–138 (2015). But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. See M. Alexander, The New Jim Crow 95–136 (2010). 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. See, e.g., W. E. B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk (1903); J. Baldwin, The Fire Next Time (1963); T. Coates, Between the World and Me (2015).
​

The dissent is some 5-7 "standard" pages long. I suggest you read it before you rely on the input of the Daily Caller.

In addition to the bit you cited, Justice Sotomayor also writes:

It is tempting in a case like this, where illegal conduct by an officer uncovers illegal conduct by a civilian, to forgive the officer. After all, his instincts, although unconstitutional, were correct. But a basic principle lies at the heart of the Fourth Amendment: Two wrongs don’t make a right. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392 (1914). When “lawless police conduct” uncovers evidence of lawless civilian conduct, this Court has long required later criminal trials to exclude the illegally obtained evidence. Terry, 392 U. S., at 12; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 655 (1961). For example, if an officer breaks into a home and finds a forged check lying around, that check may not be used to prosecute the homeowner for bank fraud. We would describe the check as “‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 488 (1963). Fruit that must be cast aside includes not only evidence directly found by an illegal search but also evidence “come at by exploitation of that illegality.” Ibid.

This “exclusionary rule” removes an incentive for officers to search us without proper justification. Terry, 392 U. S., at 12. It also keeps courts from being “made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such invasions.” Id., at 13. When courts admit only lawfully obtained evidence, they encourage “those who formulate law enforcement polices, and the officers who implement them, to incorporate Fourth Amendment ideals into their value system.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 492 (1976). But when courts admit illegally obtained evidence as well, they reward “manifest neglect if not an open defiance of the prohibitions of the Constitution.” Weeks, 232 U. S., at 394.

Applying the exclusionary rule, the Utah Supreme Court correctly decided that Strieff ’s drugs must be excluded because the officer exploited his illegal stop to discover them. The officer found the drugs only after learning of Strieff ’s traffic violation; and he learned of Strieff ’s traffic violation only because he unlawfully stopped Strieff to check his driver’s license.

The court also correctly rejected the State’s argument that the officer’s discovery of a traffic warrant unspoiled the poisonous fruit. The State analogizes finding the warrant to one of our earlier decisions, Wong Sun v. United States. There, an officer illegally arrested a person who, days later, voluntarily returned to the station to confess to committing a crime. 371 U. S., at 491. Even though the person would not have confessed “but for the illegal actions of the police,” id., at 488, we noted that the police did not exploit their illegal arrest to obtain the confession, id., at 491. Because the confession was obtained by “means sufficiently distinguishable” from the constitutional violation, we held that it could be admitted into evidence. Id., at 488, 491. The State contends that the search incident to the warrant-arrest here is similarly distinguishable from the illegal stop.

But Wong Sun explains why Strieff ’s drugs must be excluded. We reasoned that a Fourth Amendment violation may not color every investigation that follows but it certainly stains the actions of officers who exploit the infraction. We distinguished evidence obtained by innocuous means from evidence obtained by exploiting misconduct after considering a variety of factors: whether a long time passed, whether there were “intervening circumstances,” and whether the purpose or flagrancy of the misconduct was “calculated” to procure the evidence. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 603–604 (1975).

These factors confirm that the officer in this case discovered Strieff ’s drugs by exploiting his own illegal conduct. The officer did not ask Strieff to volunteer his name only to find out, days later, that Strieff had a warrant against him. The officer illegally stopped Strieff and immediately ran a warrant check. The officer’s discovery of a warrant was not some intervening surprise that he could not have anticipated. Utah lists over 180,000 misdemeanor warrants in its database, and at the time of the arrest, Salt Lake County had a “backlog of outstanding warrants” so large that it faced the “potential for civil liability.” See Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 (2015) (Systems Survey) (Table 5a), online at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf (all Internet materials as last visited June 16, 2016); Inst. for Law and Policy Planning, Salt Lake County Criminal Justice System Assessment 6.7 (2004), online at Request Rejected cjac/ resources/SaltLakeCJSAfinal.pdf. The officer’s violation was also calculated to procure evidence. His sole reason for stopping Strieff, he acknowledged, was investigative—he wanted to discover whether drug activity was going on in the house Strieff had just exited. App. 17.

The warrant check, in other words, was not an “intervening circumstance” separating the stop from the search for drugs. It was part and parcel of the officer’s illegal “expedition for evidence in the hope that something might turn up.” Brown, 422 U. S., at 605. Under our precedents, because the officer found Strieff’s drugs by exploiting his own constitutional violation, the drugs should be excluded.
​

The preceding is the dissenters' assessment of the case, the dissenting argument. Find something in there that's racially driven. You won't. What you will find is a resounding defense of yours and my 4th Amendment rights.

The remainder of the dissent that precedes Justice Sotomayor's "editorial" directly takes on the arguments presented in the majority opinion, presenting the dissenters' counterargument and rebuttal to it.

Our "judicial" system is corrupt to its core.

SCOTUS' trend has been to act as an apologist for the government and find a pretext to aggrandize the government and create a police state.Why else would we "enjoy" a gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state if they were acting as a BULWARK OF LIBERTY

The SCOTUS has CENSORED at least one opinion that I know of - James Clark McReynold's dissent in the gold clause cases.


.

 

[320 Years of History]

The SCOTUS has CENSORED at least one opinion that I know of - James Clark McReynold's dissent in the gold clause cases.

I'm sorry.....

• What does the opinion of an associate SCOTUS justice who died in 1941, assuming it's so, have to do with Justice Sotomayor's dissent in the case discussed here?
  
  
• Which of the gold clause cases' dissenting opinion did Justice Reynolds write that was/has been suppressed?
  
  I can see what appears to be his dissenting opinion in Perry right here: Perry v. United States 294 U.S. 330 (1935) . The dissent in Perry appears to be noted as the dissent also for Nortz. Justice McReynolds' dissent in Banker's Trust is here, and like Perry, it's dissent covers another case, Norman.
  
  I checked an outline of the gold clause cases as well. I can find nothing indicating there is a suppressed dissenting opinion.
  
  The gold clause cases are:
  • Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
  • United States v. Bankers Trust Co.
  • Nortz v. United States
  • Perry v. United States