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
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRead Sonia Sotomayor’s Atomic Bomb of a Dissent Slamming Racial Profiling and Mass Imprisonment
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/20/sonia_sotomayor_dissent_in_utah_v_strieff_takes_on_police_misconduct.htmlThe Supreme Court issued an extraordinarily disappointing 53 decision on Monday in Utah v. Strieff, a Fourth Amendment case about police searches. Yet the terrible ruling came with a bright spot: In a powerful and groundbreaking dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor lambasted the majority for its heartless and illogical rejection of Fourth Amendment freedoms, invoking the Justice Departments Ferguson report, echoing Black Lives Matter, and even citing Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Strieff itself involves a fairly simple question of constitutional law. Typically, when police illegally stop an individual on the street without reasonable suspicion, any fruits of that stopsuch as the discovery of illegal drugsmust be suppressed in court, because the stop was unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Strieff gave the justices an opportunity to affirm this constitutional rule. But instead, Justice Stephen Breyer joined the courts four conservatives to add a huge loophole to that long-established doctrine. In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court found that if an officer illegally stops an individual then discovers an arrest warranteven for an incredibly minor crime, like a traffic violationthe stop is legitimized, and any evidence seized can be used in court. The only restriction is when an officer engages in flagrant police misconduct, which the decision declines to define.
Sotomayor, who dominated oral arguments in Strieff, refused to let the majority get away with this Fourth Amendment diminution without a fight. In a stunning dissent, Sotomayor explains the startling breadth of the courts decision. This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrantseven if you are doing nothing wrong, Sotomayor writes, in a dissent joined in part by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant.
Most striking about the Courts opinion, Sotomayor notes is its insistence that the event here was isolated, with no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct. But in truth, nothing about this case is isolated. Sotomayor then dives into the widespread police misconduct that has dominated headlines for several years, focusing on the Department of Justices Ferguson report to demonstrate that outstanding warrants are surprisingly common.
Strieff itself involves a fairly simple question of constitutional law. Typically, when police illegally stop an individual on the street without reasonable suspicion, any fruits of that stopsuch as the discovery of illegal drugsmust be suppressed in court, because the stop was unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Strieff gave the justices an opportunity to affirm this constitutional rule. But instead, Justice Stephen Breyer joined the courts four conservatives to add a huge loophole to that long-established doctrine. In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court found that if an officer illegally stops an individual then discovers an arrest warranteven for an incredibly minor crime, like a traffic violationthe stop is legitimized, and any evidence seized can be used in court. The only restriction is when an officer engages in flagrant police misconduct, which the decision declines to define.
Sotomayor, who dominated oral arguments in Strieff, refused to let the majority get away with this Fourth Amendment diminution without a fight. In a stunning dissent, Sotomayor explains the startling breadth of the courts decision. This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrantseven if you are doing nothing wrong, Sotomayor writes, in a dissent joined in part by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant.
Most striking about the Courts opinion, Sotomayor notes is its insistence that the event here was isolated, with no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct. But in truth, nothing about this case is isolated. Sotomayor then dives into the widespread police misconduct that has dominated headlines for several years, focusing on the Department of Justices Ferguson report to demonstrate that outstanding warrants are surprisingly common.
Marry me, Sonia! <3
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 768 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Read Sonia Sotomayor’s Atomic Bomb of a Dissent Slamming Racial Profiling and Mass Imprisonment (Original Post)
KamaAina
Jun 2016
OP
mucifer
(23,576 posts)1. The 3 women on the court were the dissenting opinoins
Now I am a big time Bernie supporter and I am not a big Hillary supporter. I would much rather Bernie appoint the new justices. I think Hillary's choices would be much more pro corporate interests.
But, we can't let trump put his choices in the supreme court. This is insane what is going on.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)2. She is thorough, thoughtful and very, very determined
I wrote this when she was being considered for the Supreme Court and some were faulting her for displaying empathy. I think that quality is part of what makes her exceptional at her job.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5733426