The Supreme Court Just Ruled In Favor Of The Police State

WASHINGTON -- In a powerful dissent to a Supreme Court ruling that took an expansive view of the limits the Constitution places on police misconduct, Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Monday seemed to address the people most affected by unfortunate encounters with the police -- black and brown Americans.

"Do not be soothed by the opinion's technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong," Sotomayor wrote in the opening paragraph of her response to Utah v. Strieff, which the court decided in a 5-3 vote.

The case had asked the justices to decide whether evidence uncovered during an unlawful police stop could be used against the person in possession of it -- a question that requires an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

"In his search for lawbreaking, the officer in this case himself broke the law."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor

It turns out that Edward Strieff, the Utah man at the center of the case, had been stopped by police officers who had a hunch that he was engaged in drug activity but didn't have any real "reasonable suspicion" that he actually was, which is required by the Constitution for investigatory stops.

Or, as Sotomayor put it: "In his search for lawbreaking, the officer in this case himself broke the law."

But then the officer got lucky: When he ran Strieff's driver's license through his system, he noticed his suspect had a minor traffic warrant for an unpaid ticket. That meant the officer could check Strieff for contraband, which he did. Then he got really lucky: He found methamphetamines in Strieff's pocket, which provided a basis for an arrest and later charge of drug possession.

In its ruling Monday, the Supreme Court determined that the drugs -- the "poisonous fruit" of the officer's illegal stop -- could be used against Strieff at his trial, even though the officer had initially violated Strieff's rights. The court called the officer's conduct "at most negligent" and the result of "good-faith mistakes."