Damon Root, a writer for the monthly publishing magazine Reason, details a bit of the fallout from the Supreme Courts decision in the case of Utah V. Streiff. Root summarizes the specifics of the case:
“The case of Utah v. Strieff began when a police officer stopped Edward Strieff on the street and ran his identification. The state of Utah concedes that this was an illegal police stop. Yet when Strieff’s identification was run it turned out that he had an outstanding traffic warrant. The officer then arrested him, searched him, and discovered drugs in his pockets. Strieff argues that the drugs should be inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment because they are the fruits of an illegal search. Today the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with Strieff and ruled for the state.”
The Supreme court ruled in favor for the State 5-3, detailing out reasoning that the illegal search became pretty much a moot point in terms of the drug possession, due to the existence of a prior warrant out for the clients arrest. This warrant it’s important to note was not of the violent nature but traffic related. You can read the whole of the Supreme courts ruling here. Obviously there’s a lot of important details and consequences from this type of ruling that are worth examining. One of them is clearly a dissenting opinion, strongly given by Justice Sonia Sotomayor as Root notes:
“Writing in dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the majority for excusing police misconduct and undermining the Fourth Amendment. “This case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time,” Sotomayor 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.”
This is strong statement but one that’s not without merit. An officer illegally stopped and detained a man as the police and the courts themselves will admit. The Officer finding out about the outstanding warrant seems in direct relation to the illegal stop. So the idea that the warrant is a good enough intervening circumstance to disregard a connection between the illegal search and the drugs seems confusing. The Officer was able to search the defendant because of this warrant, even though the defendant gave no consent to search him or any confession of wrong doing/illegal items on him and the officers detection of the warrant only came because of this illegal stop!
Legal language is full of technicality and complications but this feels like a win for the Police in being able to take advantage of a minor arrest warrant, and not get any repercussions in violating the 4th amendment. There were three major factors listed in determining the outcome of this case. The first was the proximity of the illegal search to the actual crime the defendant is being charged for. This was the only factor the court determined that favored Streiff as the violation occurred only minutes before illegal drugs were discovered on his person. The other factor stated that an intervening circumstance could make dismissing evidence on 4th amendment grounds the wrong choice. The court determined that this was the case with the outstanding traffic warrant. The third factor, which seems a slippery one, stated that the level of the flagrance committed by the officer could determine whether dismissing evidence was appropriate or not. Here’s the language of the court:
“The third factor, “the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct,” id., at 604, also strongly favors the State. Officer Fackrell was at most negligent, bu this errors in judgment hardly rise to a purposeful or flagrant violation of Strieff’s Fourth Amendment rights. After the unlawful stop, his conduct was lawful, and there is no indication that the stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct. Pp. 6–9″
So a big part in determining this partly comes from how much the officer violated the 4th amendment? This seems a slippery slope because a violation of the 4th amendment is a violation of the 4th amendment, even if the officers purpose or intent wasn’t to do that. His running of the defendants ID came because of this outright violation of Search and Seizure policies. It seems ridiculous that this fact can be dismissed because his violation wasn’t as blatant or a sign of some systematic failure. Here’s another quote I found very interesting and actually dangerous. From Justice Thomas:
“But the Court has also held that, even when there is a Fourth Amendment violation, this exclusionary rule does not apply when the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent benefits.”
And similar wording here:
“But the significant costs of this rule have led us to deem it “applicable only . . . where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs.” Hudson v. Michigan, 547
U. S. 586, 591 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Suppression of evidence . . . has always been our last resort, not our first impulse.”
Ok so apparently if the state finds that if the 4th amendment has been violated by one of its officers, it doesn’t and shouldn’t exclude evidence if it believes that the cost of this exclusion outweighs the benefits of evidence being allowed. So for Streiff, the state seems to be saying that the cost of letting go a low level drug consumer whose only crime prior on record was a traffic violation outweighs the cost of violating his 4th amendment with an illegal stop, arresting him for a non violent traffic crime, and then prosecuting him for a non violent drug crime. What exactly are we accomplishing to society with this arrest and prosecution. The “social cost” of letting off a non violent offender, whose rights have been admittedly violated, was too high? It’s interesting to note that the Utah SC before this decision was made all voted that this evidence should have been suppressed.
- “3d 532. It held that the evidence was inadmissible because only “a voluntary act of a defendant’s free will (as in a confession or consent to search)” sufficiently breaksthe connection between an illegal search and the discovery of evidence. Id., at 536. Because Officer Fackrell’s discovery of a valid arrest warrant did not fit this description, the court ordered the evidence suppressed. Ibid.”
The Utah court ruling is a lot more of a logical conclusion in this case if you’re asking me. However If you need further reason why the Drug War has been and is a shameful joke look no further than the United States Supreme court ignoring an officer clearly violating this mans 4th amendment rights and determining that the social cost of not punishing a low level non violent drug consumer with an outstanding traffic violation was too high.
If you believe your 4th amendment has been violated within the State of Illinois, Laura Law office will be always willing to help.
