SCOTUS Just Destroyed The 4th Amendment While You Weren’t Looking

[GoLeft TV]

Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the 4th amendment is, essentially, null and void. In a 5-3 ruling, with Justice Stephen Breyer siding with the Republican justices, the court ruled that it is admissible in court for police officers or prosecutors to use illegally obtained evidence from illegal searches in a trial. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins discusses this.

[Atman]

1. Nothing to see here. Move along.

We're fucked. And we'll be fucked way more if we have a Republican president with a GOP Congress.

[hueymahl]

2. That is not even close to what happened

SCOTUS simply said you can do a breath test on suspected drunk drivers without their consent. Previous to this, you had to get their consent, and via implied consent laws, if you failed to do so, you could have your license revoked and other penalties similar to a DUI conviction. BUT, without actual consent, you could not admit a breath test in a court case for DUI.

Nothing else has changed about the 4th amendment. This is a marginal change on the edges of the law. Certainly important to people who like to drive drunk, but far, far from the "destruction" of the 4th amendment.

[LS_Editor]

7. It had nothing to do with suspected drunk drivers. It was an illegal stop that discovered drugs.

[hueymahl]

9. We must not be talking about the same thing.

Is this the case?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_8n59.pdf
Birchfield v. ND?

If not, what case are you referring to?

[LS_Editor]

10. UTAH v . STRIEFF

UTAH v. STRIEFF

[hueymahl]

11. Thanks.

I don't love that decision because the dumbass should never have been stopped in the first place, but the drugs were found on said dumbass in connection with a lawful search conducted in connection with an arrest on an outstanding warrant.

It is tough to think of a result that would make more sense, however. If someone is improperly (illegally) stopped by the police, and the police discover an arrest warrant for that someone, should the police be forced to release the someone because of the illegal stop? Does the arrest warrant get squashed? Both seem absurd.

And if the arrest is allowed to go through, can they not conduct a lawful search in connection with arrest? Of course they can - you have to search an arrestee to protect the officers, other inmates and the arrestee himself. And that was the courts reasoning. They couched it in terms of applying the "attenuation" doctrine, meaning there were intervening circumstances that attenuated the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine designed to "punish" law enforcement by excluding evidence obtained from illegal searches.

Regardless, whether you agree or disagree with the decision, this hardly is SCOTUS DESTROYED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT or even a major decision (which is also why you have not heard about this decision anywhere in the media). It is an exception to an exception and the normal refinement of constitutional rights and court-made remedies.

[LS_Editor]

12. All evidence coming from that stop should have been suppressed.

It was an illegal stop and request for identification that resulted in the warrant being discovered.

Any evidence resulting from that stop should have been suppressed as fruit from a poisonous tree. The Utah Supreme Court did precisely that, and its decision was overturned by the conservative nitwits on that reprehensible court.

The stop was unconstitutional. It did not provide the citizen with due process of law. Warrant or not, the evidence should have been tossed.

I understand you don't feel this is a major decision, as you did not even reference the correct court decision in your defense of the Court.

[Else You Are Mad]

3. Wait, amendments can be...

... Reinterpreted for modern advancements?!? But.. But... the GOP keeps on saying otherwise...?

[Locrian]

4. at least some disagree

Justice Thomas’s opinion drew a fiery dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said that “it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny.”

“This case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time,” she wrote. “It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/supreme-court-says-police-may-use-evidence-found-after-illegal-stops.html?_r=0

[pansypoo53219]

5. no shit. you WILL be guilty when we FIND ANYTHING we can use.

and the shit bucket is now law of the land.

[jtuck004]

6. Actually most are looking. But some things don't bother sheep.n/t

[sulphurdunn]

8. The only rights

people ever have are the ones they're willing to fight for. If they are important enough to fight for, someone else wants to take them away. People unwilling to fight for their rights soon have none. Most Americans won't even hear about this, many would agree with it or not care if they did hear about it, and the others would just bitch.