In Lone Dissent, Justice Sotomayor Blasts Majority Opinion: 'No Foundation in Fact or Logic'

[Calista241]

Source: Law & Crime

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the lone and blistering dissent in an opinion which increased the power of police officers to conduct vehicle stops while diminishing the protections of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“The majority’s justifications for [the opinion’s] new approach have no foundation in fact or logic,” the left-leaning justice notes.

Stylized as Kansas v. Glover, the 8-1 opinion concerns a man, Charles Glover Jr., whose license plate was run by a Douglas County Sheriff’s deputy for no discernible law enforcement purpose. Running the plate determined that the owner of the vehicle had his driver’s license revoked, so the deputy then pulled Glover over on the assumption that he was the driver.

Glover was ultimately charged with “driving as a habitual violator.”

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/in-lone-dissent-justice-sotomayor-blasts-majority-opinion-no-foundation-in-fact-or-logic/

[docgee]

1. I see nothing wrong with randomly running plates.

The officer could have found a stolen car or wanted pedophile.

[marble falls]

3. But he didn't. Part of his stop was running a plate for no NO reason. There was no ...

probable cause.

This is an erosion of due process.


Using your logic, why not lock the guy up for life to prevent him from becoming a pedophile?

[docgee]

5. That's what I'm saying.

The officer doesn't need probable cause to run the plate. Pull him over, search the vehicle, then yes he/she needs probable cause. The plate is on the outside of the vehicle for the world to see.

[PoliticAverse]

29. No, this case isn't about "running plates". There is no question as to the legality of that.

It's about "reasonable suspicion" for stopping the vehicle and whether the information gleaned from running a plate supports that.

[Laelth]

31. It's an unreasonable search. That's what it is.

This ruling further erodes our rights under the 4th Amendment.

Thank you, Justice Sotomayor!



-Laelth

[PoliticAverse]

35. No, read the dissent. The case isn't about the legality of "runnng plates"...

it's about whether the information gleaned from doing so constitutes "reasonable suspicion".

[Laelth]

48. Either way.

It’s a 4th Amendment unreasonable search case and not a due process case. That’s the point that I was trying to make.

-Laelth

[MichMan]

36. So all 8 that ruled opposite of Sotomayer were wrong?

Not just Roberts, Alito, Breyer, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but also Ginsberg, and Kagan all were in agreement. Not too many decisions have that much support among such a wide range of justices.

[Laelth]

46. Obviously, Justice Sotomayor and I are in error.

What the majority ruled is now the law. My point was that this case didn’t revolve around due process rights but around the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable government searches.

-Laelth

[Haggis for Breakfast]

58. Then you and I are in excellent company with Justice Sotomayer.

[Laelth]

61. Cheers! n/t

-Laelth

[mr_lebowski]

4. That's not really the problem, and they do that all the time ... (nt)

[unblock]

7. Running the plates is not the issue

At issue was the fact that there was no evidence or suspicion of any crime by driver of the vehicle.

The *owner* of the vehicle had a suspended license, but there was no reason to suspect the car was being driven by the owner. It could have been driven by a relative or friend. Certainly that's what one should be doing if one has a suspended license.

The police pulled the car over on the unsubstantiated hunch that the driver might have been the owner.

*that* is the problem.

[docgee]

9. What? Lol

"there was no reason to suspect the car was being driven by the owner" - seriously? That would be my first assumption.

[unblock]

10. but it's just a hunch. there's zero evidence of it.

why would you assume that someone not legally allowed to drive a car is driving a car?

if my wife has a suspended license, i can still legally drive her car. should i be pulled over any time the police feel like it?

[docgee]

11. So the police need evidence before they do an investigation to find evidence.

That is what you are saying. A murder can happen in your house but the police cannot question you because someone else in your house could be the murderer.

On edit, ok I realize you are saying no evidence of a crime was committed with the suspended license, but it is reasonable to assume the owner is driving. There are a lot of people breaking this law.

[unblock]

14. presumably you're making wildly different assumptions,

in the case at hand, the police had no particular reason to believe a crime had been committed, no particular reason to believe the driver and the owner were one and the same.

if they had presented evidence in court showing that driving without a suspended license is rampant in that jurisdiction, or that of all the times they pull over a car (for other, legitimate reasons) where the owner of the car has a suspended license, then 95+% of the time the driver is the owner, well *that* might be a good basis for reasonable suspicion.

but they didn't present anything like that. so, legally, it's just an officer's hunch, which is *not* enough for "reasonable suspicion".

or at least, it wasn't prior to this decision....


even hollywood usually gets this one right, in all those police shows, they just "know" the guy's guilty, but they know they need "probably cause". of course, in tv shows, they usually invent probably cause, but at least they know that a police officer's hunch is not enough.


to address you edit: do you really know how often the driver of a car whose owner has a suspended license is actually the owner and not a friend or relative? i don't. i suppose i wouldn't be surprised if your guess is correct, it may even be the vast majority of the time. but why didn't they present this argument? because they didn't run any kind of study like that, which means they were just guessing. that used to be not good enough.

[EndlessWire]

70. I disagree.

The act of suspending a license is against the person, not his car. In fact, the person would then have to get someone to drive his car for him.

We are turning into a fascist state, where soon we will not be safe against unwarranted arrest in our own homes. This decision is a terrible one, which will be expanded into other circumstances, under this illogical decision.

Who ARE these people sitting there over us? We don't know them.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

72. re: "So the police need evidence before they do an investigation to find evidence."

Absolutely. Where have I heard of law enforcement randomly stopping people and inspecting their "papers"? Many states used to have a registration tag to attach to your plate as evidence that the vehicle was currently registered. Now your papers are online. I renew my registration on the state website and print my own paper copy or download an image to phone. Ever heard of law enforcement demanding people's phones and requiring them to unlock the phone?

Yes, for sure, lacking clear evidence of a crime, police cannot simply begin investigating on a hunch. Police work should have the bar set a bit higher than it is for the Sunday fisherman.

Amendment IV: The 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, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[docgee]

74. Driving a car which is owned by someone with a suspended license is probable cause

enough to get pulled over and questioned. It is not unreasonable. In most cases the car is probably not insured since the insurance company will drop you when it finds out your license is suspended. 2 reasons to get pulled over. It's not evidence of an emerging police state; it's been that way for decades.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

75. Wrong sir.

First, you do not need to ever have had a license to own a car. You only need the license to drive on a public road. You can insure the car without a license.

Second, if running the plate number doesn't reveal that the car is stolen or that the registration is expired or has been suspended (which would be the case if your insurance lapses) then there is no reason to investigate who owns it or if his brother-in-law is a registered communist.

Charging someone with a crime requires the officer to present to a court a prima facie case that there is a reason to proceed. Arresting someone requires the officer to have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. A GUESS that someone may be committing a crime doesn't give the officer the authority for investigating, searching, interrogating and detaining them. At least it shouldn't. You're suggesting that observing a car driving on the street which is owned by someone with a suspend license is reasonable suspicion of a crime. I'm maintaining that the investigation leading to the finding that the owner had his license suspended should not be within police authority.

So you think that plate scanners and computer equipped police cars have been around "for decades"?

Consider yourself dismissed.
Have a nice evening.

[docgee]

77. Wrong

I know from personal experience the insurance company can drop you when your license gets suspended. I also didn't say plate scanning was around for decades, only the police randomly running your plates has been around for decades, also from personal experience.

I did however just talk to a law enforcement friend of mine who informed me that it is against the law for a cop to randomly run your plates without probable cause. This is Florida. I now need to apologise to everyone on this post.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. You're a good person

I am impressed with the Justice and her ruling.
I hope you have a nice evening and thanks for the new info.

I have my preferences but I'm negotiable.

[oldsoftie]

32. not any time they feel like it, any time they reasonably think the driver is illegal

[PoliticAverse]

55. The legal requirement is "reasonable suspicion", is it reasonable to suspect

that the owner of a car is the one driving it?

Justice Kagan and Ginsburg write:

When you see a car coming down the street, your commonsense tells you that the registered owner may well be be-hind the wheel. See ante, at 4, 9. Not always, of course.Families share cars; friends borrow them. Still, a person often buys a vehicle to drive it himself. So your suspicion that the owner is driving would be perfectly reasonable.

[unblock]

59. That's the key point of disagreement in the dissent

It's problematic. First, while it may be reasonable to guess that the driver of any random car is its owner, it's different to assume that this is equally the case when the owners license has been revoked. Surely many such drivers obey the law and therefore it's more likely thaa ask usual that the driver is someone else.

To make matters worse, it puts the burden of proof on the defendant if the police can pull someone over on such hunches.

Now, a defendant has to prove the police was unreasonable rather than the police having to show probable cause.

[PoliticAverse]

38. Yes, justices Kagan and Ginsburg argued that it's reasonable to assume the car owner is likely

to be the one driving it in their concurrance.

When you see a car coming down the street, your commonsense tells you that the registered owner may well be be-hind the wheel. See ante, at 4, 9. Not always, of course. Families share cars; friends borrow them. Still, a person often buys a vehicle to drive it himself. So your suspicion that the owner is driving would be perfectly reasonable.

[treestar]

52. But it might not be

That’s why there is no reason to suspect the driver, as such.

There was no probable cause to stop the vehicle. Unless the cop knew the guy and pulled up alongside.

[cstanleytech]

18. But part of running plates is to make sure a car is currently legal to be driven on the

road so that alone gives the police enough probable cause to conduct a simple plate check.
Now once the officer found out the owner had their license suspended then the officer is probably going to pull them over to make sure that whoever is driving it has a valid license because if it was the owner they would be breaking the law if they were driving.

[unblock]

19. The plate check is not the issue

The problem is that neither the plate check nor anything else provided probable cause of any crime by the driver or involving that car. But they pulled the driver over anyway, on the hunch that the driver was the owner and if that hunch was right, *then* there would be a crime.

[cstanleytech]

20. But that is just it once the plate was run then the officer knows the owner cannot be the driver and

they have probable cause at that point to make sure that whoever is actually doing the driving does have a valid license.

[unblock]

22. That's ridiculous

If they assumed the driver was not the owner, they have zero reason to think a crime was committed.

Just guessing the spouse or friend also had a suspended license?

That makes zero sense.

[cstanleytech]

26. Well I will point out that the only judge that dissented was Sotomayor so clearly the other liberal

judges do not think it makes zero sense.

[unblock]

28. Haven't read the opinion but I seriously doubt they used that argument

I think argument they used was more likely that the officer could reasonably assume the driver *was* the owner.

[cstanleytech]

33. I do not know what argument they used either but seeing as

Sotomayor was the lone dissent I lean more towards them making the right ruling this time.

[unblock]

42. Even liberals get it wrong sometimes. From the article:

“Another blow to the Fourth Amendment,” noted New Jersey public defender Morgan Birck. “Sotomayor dissenting points out how the majority has flipped the burden of proof such that it is assumed the police has reasonable suspicion, and then essentially the defense has to disprove that.”

University of the District of Columbia Law Professor Andrew G. Ferguson called out the opinion and a similar case via Twitter: “They are just ends justifying opinions. They distort the already weak Fourth Amendment and do so without solid logic or case support.”

Birck also offered the following sobering upshot for criminal justice reform advocates: “Other notes: Ginsburg and Kagan are not really our friends. Kagan especially is not particularly friendly to criminal defendants. Also, Sotomayor with the huge flex of quoting herself from another dissent.”

[rooboy]

12. You could use that argument for random executions

in case, you know, you take out a serial killer or escaped pedophile.

[docgee]

13. I don't think he was arrested until the officer found out he was the owner.

Getting pulled over is not the same as getting busted.

[unblock]

16. getting pulled over requires probable cause

and strictly speaking, it is an arrest as soon as you're pulled over.

[cstanleytech]

21. Not always as I was pulled over once when I got my only speeding ticket

(going downhill so was not paying as much attention as I should have been) and they did not arrest me after they pulled me over.

[unblock]

24. "They pulled you over" is legally an arrest.

It does go on your arrest record but technically it is an arrest.

[oldsoftie]

37. No it is NOT an arrest. Where do you get this from?

You arent arrested until the officer PLACES you under arrest.

[unblock]

44. It's an arrest because you are not free to leave:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/justifies-arrest-probable-cause.html

An arrest occurs when a police officer takes a person into custody. However, arrest is not synonymous with being taken to jail. The following common situations illustrate the scope of an arrest:

Example A driver is stopped for a routine traffic violation. The driver technically is under arrest because the driver is not free to leave until the officer has written a ticket (or if it’s the driver’s lucky day, only issued a warning). But the arrest is temporary. Assuming the officer has no basis to suspect that the driver is engaged in criminal activity other than the traffic violation, the officer usually releases the driver once the driver produces identification and signs a promise to appear in court (assuming a ticket was written). Traffic stop arrests do not become part of a person’s arrest record, and do not count as arrests for the purpose of answering the question, “Have you ever been arrested?” (on a job or license application, for example).

[oldsoftie]

60. "technically". Not "actually". Being detained is not the same as being arrested.

And waiting to get a ticket is NOT being taken into custody.
A cop can "detain" you just by stopping traffic. You're not free to go till he says so. You're still not under arrest.
I can see it now; someone says "I got arrested today" and they only got a speeding ticket. Silly.

[Rebl2]

62. You aren't

arrested until they read you your rights. They may to detain you to write you a ticket, not same as being arrested, unless of course you speed away. Then you will be arrested-pretty sure.

[unblock]

66. See above, legal definition vs. lay definition.

Legally the arrest started as soon as they pulled you over. It's just that usually that kind of arrest is only 20 minutes or so.

[unblock]

65. I don't disagree with the substance of what you're saying

But legally, when you're pulled over, that's an arrest. That's legally important, because it means the police can't do it to just anyone, the way they can just walk up to anyone on the street and say hey, mind if I ask you a few questions. *that* is not an arrest.

Because pulling someone over is an arrest, the police need probable cause of some infraction.


But you are correct in that if someone asked you "have you ever been arrested" you would so no if you've only been pulled over and maybe gotten a ticket or two, but never been taken to the police station, booked, etc.

That's a difference between the legal definition of "arrest" and the lay definition of the term.

[treestar]

53. It is something

A citation, detention and those all fall under the same concept. The government is stopping you from going on with your business.

[marble falls]

2. There are some here who think that this was a fair bust, it wasn't. The deputy was 'fishing'.

There was no probable cause. He was playing lawman.

[procon]

6. That's what I was going to say.

If the cops stop you they are going to find some charge against you to make it worth there time and effort. If all else failed they would have used that catch all, "resisting arrest".

The gov has been whittling away at the constitution for decades. A piece at a time, in little bits they have taken away many individual rights. Cops make mistakes, they are not infallible, and the court should not grant them more powers to undermine personal liberties.

[cstanleytech]

23. It isn't about fair its about legal.

Did the owner have a valid license of the car? If yes then there would be no cause to be pulled over.
If they did not have a valid license though the odds are that its going to cause the officer to probably pull the car over simply to make sure that whoever is behind the wheel of the vehicle has a valid license.

[oldsoftie]

40. You make a good point; just because something isnt fair doesnt mean its illegal.

Just like some things that considered "fair" arent "right"

[marybourg]

8. STYLED as Kansas v. Glover, not stylized.

That’s written by a lawyer? Or even an educated person? ( Not aimed at the poster, but at the source).

[CTyankee]

30. I never heard of that usage...what does "styled" mean in this context?

[marybourg]

50. The name that's given to a lawsuit,

like "Roe v. Wade".

[CTyankee]

68. Thanks!

[oldsoftie]

43. Its been corrected when i clicked on it

[JohnnyRingo]

15. This ruling involves "license plate scanning".

More and more patrol cars have plate readers that scan moving cars using recognition software. With it, police can run every plate that passes them on the street whether they did anything wrong or not. Wants and warrants come up on the screen automatically as do expired plates and suspended licenses.

I was at a fair last year when I saw a sheriff cruising up and down rows of the parking lot fishing for whatever he could find. People who say "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" should have a police camera mounted across the street from their house, including the SC justices.

[Igel]

17. Lots of people say "if you haven't done anything wrong, what's wrong with an investigation."

They insist that's neutral and fair.

Until they side with the person being investigated. Then it's profiling, it's a smear, it's inherently an accusation.

I've seen cases in the media where somebody was brought up on charges, and after years of legal fees and bad press that destroyed his career and family and landed him in bankruptcy course finally was acquitted. And people firmly on the "it's profiling, it's a smear" when it's one of their own were still, "well, see, he was acquitted, so what's the problem?" Those less hypocritical gloated and said that since justice wasn't served in court, at least the investigation served as punishment.

But it's a sliding scale. Being stopped for what's likely a violation puts you 5-10 minutes late. It's more of a dodge than following a principle.

In a few states (both red and blue) that I've lived in, there were traffic cameras. Maybe at red lights, maybe for toll roads. You break the law, a ticket's generated and sent. No picture of the driver. And the fines hold up in court for the most part. The owner has to show that not only was he somewhere else but there was no way he could foresee that the driver would use the car. The point: If it's your car, it's your responsibility.

[PoliticAverse]

54. No it's not about the scanning itself it's about whether the information gleaned from the scanning

in this specific case constitutes "reasonable suspicion".

[warmfeet]

25. Well, I certainly have no problem with the erosion of my rights, or yours for that matter.

It's all bullshit right? I have nothing to hide, therefore just lock me up in your favorite neighborhood gulag.

Hey, you have no problem with this? Just let me lock you up in my gulag for a few weeks. Why only weeks? That's your new lifespan mate. Yeah, let's just fucking give up.

[Laelth]

27. I am sick of seeing our 4th Amendment rights eroded.

k&r for Justice Sotomayor!



-Laelth

[FM123]

34. Sonia Sotomayor was right to dissent.

Increasing the power of police officers to conduct vehicle stops while diminishing the protections of the Fourth Amendment is something that is really frightening, especially if you are a person of color.

[Laelth]

51. Hear! Hear! n/t

-Laelth

[Rebl2]

64. I agree

with you. Stopping a person for no reason is so wrong. This happened to my sister in the early 80’s for no reason. She was in her late teens by the way. No ticket, and no reason given. She got the feeling he just wanted to flirt with her. We were too naive to know to report him. She actually didn’t tell me until days later.

[intheflow]

39. One guess as to the driver's race.

Hint: it ain't white.

[Tarc]

41. She is in the wrong, as evidenced by being the 1 of an 8-1

A cop doesn't need a reason to look up a place, it is about as routine as it gets.

[the_sly_pig]

45. Police run plates all the time while on patrol....

It's often how stolen vehicles are located and it's a great way to find people with warrants. And I should also note it's random. Police driving around running plates and answering calls for service.

There is absolutely nothing new about running plates. Most agencies have plate scanning technology that actually runs the plate for the officer and beeps when someone's license is revoked or suspended, or if the tabs are expired et cetera.

[MichMan]

47. People aren't supposed to drive on a revoked license.

Now if the car was pulled over, it turned out to be someone else driving and after the car was searched that person was then arrested for drugs etc., I would agree that would be an unreasonable search. In this case, since the person with the revoked license was actually the one driving, I agree with the other 8 justices.

[liberal N proud]

49. They should be reminded that they set precedents

That could lead overturning their beloved 2nd amendment

[LaelthsDaughter]

56. I am the voice of error

While I know this will offend a great many people, I have a real damn good reason for it. I am in error.(I do not have the jurisdiction to say whether this is the right or wrong decision, but I am going to tell you how I feel.) Listen up, please.

So, In my humble opinion, this decision was poorly made. (Aka: bull crap) This is because we have a real good reason for the 4th amendment. This is to prevent cops from these unreasonable searches and seizures. Cops already have too much power to search and sieze people who are already allegedly members of a free society. I don’t want them to have any such more power. Not only that, but it’s the start of a possible chain of events that lead to a police state. That in itself is bad juju.

Here’s my example of myself. I own the vehicle, but my dad drives it. If I had commited a crime(let’s just say homicide) and the police ran the plates then my dad’s getting his 4th amendment rights taken away. Cause again, he drives and I do not. This is wrong and I find it offensive to all the people who will have similar problems.

There also runs the risk of more racial discrimination with this new law. If a cop doesn’t like a person they can run the plates and if anything pops up, bam. They pull ya over and have the right to search ya vehicle/arrest you. That just ain’t cool. Like, this is 101 american freedom. The more power cops get, the spookier.

Just trust that this will be changed in time. In the mean time, spread the world.

[Laelth]

57. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[Steelrolled]

63. Regardless of the issue, it is always heartening to see a

case which is not split across Dem/Rep lines.

[Polybius]

67. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has become the most liberal member of the SC

She was an amazing pick.

[Calista241]

73. I wouldn't even call this ruling particularly liberal.

Protecting citizens from the government intrusion is traditionally a conservative value.

[Nitram]

69. Clearly there are valid arguments on both sides. The decision suggests that Sotomayor

leans farther towards individual freedom from scrutiny by law enforcement than any of the other justices in this case.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

71. Brava Madame Justice

Having read of people arrested and charged with theft for overdue library books and knowing friends who've lost vehicles because of a forgotten traffic ticket, we have every reason to fear random inspections, searches and investigations. When a department spends the labor to scan all the plates in a parking lot to find expired registrations and unpaid tickets while unsolved rapes and murders remain without progress, that department is just not doing its job. I am appalled by law enforcement pursuing crimes based on ease of prosecution rather than impact on society.

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

[Hoyt]

76. I'll trust RBG, even on a bad day.

[docgee]

78. I need to apologise to everyone on this post.

I did just talk to a law enforcement friend of mine who informed me that it is against the law for a cop to randomly run your plates without probable cause. They can get fined thousands. This is in Florida, btw. My personal experience said otherwise, but I guess if I would have sued I would have lost anyway. I always assumed when a cop was behind you, you were getting your plate number searched.