Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

babylonsister

(171,024 posts)
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:39 PM Jun 2016

In Scathing Dissent, Justice Sotomayor Says Supreme Court Just Gave The Green Light To Racist Cops

In Scathing Dissent, Justice Sotomayor Says Supreme Court Just Gave The Green Light To Racist Cops

by Aviva Shen Jun 20, 2016 1:18 pm


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that police can still arrest someone for an outstanding warrant even if they had no right to stop the person in the first place.


The opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, reverses a Utah Supreme Court order to suppress evidence discovered by a police officer during an illegal stop. After getting an anonymous tip about unspecified drug activity at a house, Officer Douglas Fackrell monitored the house for several days and ultimately decided to stop a random visitor to the house. That unlucky visitor turned out to be Edward Strieff. Fackrell had no reason to stop Strieff, yet he asked for identification and discovered a minor traffic violation on his record. Fackrell arrested him for the outstanding warrant and searched him, finding a bag of methamphetamine.

Thomas reasoned that even though the initial stop was unlawful, the discovery of the minor traffic warrant legitimized the search that produced the drugs.

Police protests have zeroed in on exactly this kind of discriminatory police practice in recent years, from the use of stop-and-frisk in New York to the shakedowns of poor people in Ferguson, Missouri, where virtually every family lives in fear of being thrown in jail due to an outstanding warrant for an unpaid fine.

This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants

The ruling, according to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is essentially giving the green light to police to continue stopping and arresting black and brown people for little to no reason beyond their race and class.

In a searing dissent joined in part by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor describes a police state that regards black and brown Americans in particular as “second-class citizens.” She issues a direct warning to those Americans whose profiling the court has sanctioned.

“This Court has given officers an array of instruments to probe and examine you,” she writes. “This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants — so long as he can point to a pretextual justification after the fact. That justification must provide specific reasons why the officer suspected you were breaking the law, but it may factor in your ethnicity, where you live, what you were wearing, and how you behaved. The officer does not even need to know which law you might have broken so long as he can later point to any possible infraction — even one that is minor, unrelated, or ambiguous.”

more...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/06/20/3790300/sotomayor-dissent-illegal-stops/

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In Scathing Dissent, Justice Sotomayor Says Supreme Court Just Gave The Green Light To Racist Cops (Original Post) babylonsister Jun 2016 OP
Thanks for the information babylon still_one Jun 2016 #1
Anytime! We surely need more like her on the bench; babylonsister Jun 2016 #3
Bad ruling from the SC. Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #2
"Majority opinion authored by Clarence Thomas" SwankyXomb Jun 2016 #4
I just finished reading Sotomayor's dissent. Very persuasive indeed. (nt) Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #5
Who comprised the majority for the decision? shraby Jun 2016 #6
Everyone but the three women. Imagine the court without them. n/t pnwmom Jun 2016 #7
It was a 5-3 decision. Very sad still_one Jun 2016 #8
Repealing the due process clause I see... bighughdiehl Jun 2016 #9
Yeah, she's pissed to the max, I think. malthaussen Jun 2016 #10
So much for the 4/4 split.... blackspade Jun 2016 #11

SwankyXomb

(2,030 posts)
4. "Majority opinion authored by Clarence Thomas"
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:56 PM
Jun 2016

Nothing good has come from the Supreme Court with that attached.

bighughdiehl

(390 posts)
9. Repealing the due process clause I see...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:30 PM
Jun 2016

But remember kids, its those nasty liberals that are actvist judges, the conservatives are strict constitutionalists. Rush Limbaugh says so, it must be true. Nothing to see here, move along now. Oh and by the way, those nasty liberals are the ones that are for "big government"...cuz somehow excessive police power does not count as "big government". My head is spinning.

malthaussen

(17,174 posts)
10. Yeah, she's pissed to the max, I think.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 07:02 PM
Jun 2016

The anger just oozes from every line. I note that even Justice Ginsberg refused to endorse the fourth part of that dissent, and she and Jusice Kagan wrote their own. Which is slightly cooler than Sotomayer's, although one doesn't have to guess how they feel about it.

Did you catch that Kagan and Ginsberg dissented "respectfully," whereas Sotomayer just dissented? The devil's in the details, methinks.

As for me, I agree with Sotomayer 100%, in all four parts.

-- Mal

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»In Scathing Dissent, Just...