(College/Professor)
(Course/Major)
If a defendant has prior warrants issued against them, and the police officers know of this fact, any evidence found at an illegal stop can be used against the suspects in court. In essence, the High Court affirmed that such searches do not impinge on the Fourth Amendment when the warrant is enforceable and unrelated to the behavior that required the stop. This opinion, rendered by Justice Clarence Thomas, drew a stern condemnation from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who averred that the decision will affirm illegal police practices of targeting racial minorities and use the decision to further this policy.
In this light, the dissenters in this decision-Justice Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice Elena Kagan-wrote that police can “dig up” petty traffic violations and then use that in detaining and arresting suspects on the basis of evidence acquired in an illegal search. Justice Sotomayor, though playing an old theme in that the racial minorities are typically the victims of such “judicial enhancement” practices, drew the fuel to condemn not on emotional fireworks, but in the language used by the majority in affirming the decision. Justice Sotomayor correctly argues that the wording in the ruling basically impinges on the Fourth Amendment by allowing police officers to legally stop individuals, and then demand the person’s identification information, and then check that against records if the person/s have outstanding warrants, even for petty offenses, and then detain the person even if at the time the person was not committing a crime when the stop was conducted. In this light, it can be stated the police have gained another “card’ to violate a person’s rights and the judicial system is a willing partner to this intrusion (Liptak).
Works Cited
Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court says police may use evidence found after illegal stops” New York Times 20 June 2016 U.S.
