Politics: Did the Supreme Court Just Effectively Gut the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule?

AUDub · Jun 21, 2016

It sure sounds like they did. Bizarre ruling.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

bamachile · Jun 21, 2016

Authoritative government officials hate the limitations instituted by the Bill of Rights for the exact reason they were enacted - they limit the power and authority of the government.

jthomas666 · Jun 21, 2016

In response to the OP:

Yes. Yes, they did.

Sotomayor pretty much opened up ALL the Whoop-Azz in that dissent.

Gr8hope · Jun 21, 2016

jthomas666 said:
In response to the OP:

Yes. Yes, they did.

Sotomayor pretty much opened up ALL the Whoop-Azz in that dissent.

Don't think this is going to go over well with the ACLU when it happens on all the stops in the Hood. The case argued was concerning a white man. If it stands it will have to be applied equally.

Displaced Bama Fan · Jun 21, 2016

Oh boy...Hello Pandora's Box.

Like people needed more reasons to distrust the police.

selmaborntidefan · Jun 21, 2016

But you see, the beauty of the Constitution is that it's a living document that can be reinterpreted decades later in accordance with whatever some clown wants to declare legal.

I'll bet that guy settles up his traffic violation next time.

TideEngineer08 · Jun 21, 2016

I wonder if she's that passionate about the 2nd amendment?

Tide1986 · Jun 21, 2016

I'll have to read the ruling carefully because I find it strange that Breyer in particular joined the majority on this one. I also wonder if the absence of Scalia produced this ruling (i.e. I wonder if he would have thought differently and would have influenced some of the majority to vote otherwise).

Bama Reb · Jun 21, 2016

I only wonder how much oppression those on the left will condone before they realize their 'leaders' ultimate goal.

Displaced Bama Fan · Jun 21, 2016

Bama Reb said:
I only wonder how much oppression those on the left will condone before they realize their 'leaders' ultimate goal.

Shhhh. You conspiracy theorist.

AUDub · Jun 21, 2016

Tide1986 said:
I'll have to read the ruling carefully because I find it strange that Breyer in particular joined the majority on this one. I also wonder if the absence of Scalia produced this ruling (i.e. I wonder if he would have thought differently and would have influenced some of the majority to vote otherwise).

Not too surprised. Breyer generally sides with the state on these cases.

AUDub · Jun 21, 2016

Bama Reb said:
I only wonder how much oppression those on the left will condone before they realize their 'leaders' ultimate goal.

The three most liberal members of the court were the ones that got it right.

bamachile · Jun 21, 2016

AUDub said:
The three most liberal members of the court were the ones that got it right.

This is what drives Libertarians nuts. At times, the left defends liberty, and at times the right. It's frustrating that neither wing seems consistent when viewed from the standpoint of individual freedoms vs. state control.

92tide · Jun 21, 2016

AUDub said:
The three most liberal members of the court were the ones that got it right.

shhh

AUDub · Jun 21, 2016

bamachile said:
This is what drives Libertarians nuts. At times, the left defends liberty, and at times the right. It's frustrating that neither wing seems consistent when viewed from the standpoint of individual freedoms vs. state control.

I hear you. To me, at least as far as expansion of police power and erosion of the Fourth Amendment, the left seems to be the far more consistent as late. Look at recent cases on the Fourth Amendment. It's usually the three females on one side and the right joined by Breyer on the other.

Displaced Bama Fan · Jun 21, 2016

AUDub said:
I hear you. To me, at least as far as expansion of police power and erosion of the Fourth Amendment, the left seems to be the far more consistent as late. Look at recent cases on the Fourth Amendment. It's usually the three females on one side and the right joined by Breyer on the other.

Misogynistic pigs.

Tide1986 · Jun 21, 2016

AUDub said:
I hear you. To me, at least as far as expansion of police power and erosion of the Fourth Amendment, the left seems to be the far more consistent as late. Look at recent cases on the Fourth Amendment. It's usually the three females on one side and the right joined by Breyer on the other.

I haven't read the ruling yet, but given the little bit that I've seen, I would have voted with the minority. The main thing I need to understand more about the case is related to this portion of the facts that were cited on the first page of the ruling:

Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a SouthSalt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. The number of people he observed making brief visits to the house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants were dealing drugs. After observing respondent Edward Strieffleave the residence, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby parking lot, identifying himself and asking Strieff what he was doing at the house.

AUDub · Jun 21, 2016

Tide1986 said:
I haven't read the ruling yet, but given the little bit that I've seen, I would have voted with the minority. The main thing I need to understand more about the case is related to this portion of the facts that were cited on the first page of the ruling:

It's pretty obvious what was going on and what Strieff was doing at that house with a little common sense, but the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make the stop according to Supreme Court interpretations of the Fourth Amendment. Usually, they'll provide some cockamamie excuse for pulling you over like "your taillight's out" or something in that vein to justify the stop.

Even the majority found the stop unconstitutional. It's not being debated. He was detained illegally. But the question is whether the state should be allowed to admit this fruit of the poisoned tree found after and as a result of his illegal detention into evidence.

Crimson1967 · Jun 21, 2016

Could they not get a warrant for the house? They had a tip and lots of people coming and going. I guess they thought the guy they busted would flip on the dealer to get the charges dropped.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bamachile · Jun 21, 2016

AUDub said:
I hear you. To me, at least as far as expansion of police power and erosion of the Fourth Amendment, the left seems to be the far more consistent as late. Look at recent cases on the Fourth Amendment. It's usually the three females on one side and the right joined by Breyer on the other.

The left usually defends the fourth, the right the second. I'm still waiting for someone (besides Tidewater) to champion the 9th and 10th.

Politics: Did the Supreme Court Just Effectively Gut the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule?

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-American

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Suspended

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!