Supreme Court Says Police May Use Evidence Found After Illegal Stops

[winb83]

So what is considered "illegal" searches, are now legitimate if you happen to have a warrant...

And how the fukk does 75% of ferguson have arrest warrants out... Wtf

If you have a warrant out for your arrest and you're standing in front of a police officer and they know this information then they can both arrest and search you before arresting you. The Supreme Court ruling is saying it doesn't matter how the officer found out you had a warrant once they have the knowledge that search is legal because they can arrest you and the search is part of that process.

I guess my issue is more with the stop itself than the search after the fact. If he shouldn't have been stopped then everything should have ended there. This sets a precedent so that officers will stop people to look for warrants on them so they can search them.

Its bad enough I gotta be driving home and get pulled over cause I'm black and told that my car fits the description of one that was fleeing from a domestic depute just so the officer can run a check on me. Now I can get stopped on the street cause they'll be looking for the same thing.

 

[Jazzy Jay]

I think the interpretation of the law is simply this. If an officer discovers you have a warrant then they can arrest you. Before they arrest you they search you under the rational of seeing if you have a weapon. If they discover you have something illegal on you then the illegal stop was already legitimized by the the warrant so whatever they find becomes retroactively legitimized as well.

This isn't too far away from an officer pulling you over for a pretextual stop when driving. They may have pulled you over because they racially profiled you but if they can find a reason to legitimize the stop with even a minor traffic violation a domino effect could happen that results in a warrantless search of your car.

In theory all this stuff sounds correct but in actuality it's disproportionately used to target minorities.

That isn't the proper interpretation though. The arrest warrant has to be discovered AFTER the unconstitutional stop. If you have an arrest warrant prior to this case, you could still be stopped and arrested and searched whenever the cops know you have an active warrant.

What this law does is let cops stop someone without knowing if they have a warrant and still admit any evidence if they were unconstitutionally stopped, meaning it was for something invalid and not their current warrant.

In the status quo, if you are profiled for a minor traffic offense and have an active warrant you can still get arrested and be searched. Searches are ALWAYS legal after an arrest. The law also says you can legally be arrested and searched for something as minor as a seatbelt violation.

Let's assume you get profiled under this new law, officers will still search for warrants before they even stop you most times. I don't think this functionally changes much, except officers might gamble stopping random people on the street assuming they have a warrant out. If there is no warrant, evidence is still excluded.

 

[Dr. Acula]

That isn't the proper interpretation though. The arrest warrant has to be discovered AFTER the unconstitutional stop. If you have an arrest warrant prior to this case, you could still be stopped and arrested and searched whenever the cops know you have an active warrant.

What this law does is let cops stop someone without knowing if they have a warrant and still admit any evidence if they were unconstitutionally stopped, meaning it was for something invalid and not their current warrant.

In the status quo, if you are profiled for a minor traffic offense and have an active warrant you can still get arrested and be searched. Searches are ALWAYS legal after an arrest. The law also says you can legally be arrested and searched for something as minor as a seatbelt violation.

Let's assume you get profiled under this new law, officers will still search for warrants before they even stop you most times. I don't think this functionally changes much, except officers might gamble stopping random people on the street assuming they have a warrant out. If there is no warrant, evidence is still excluded.

Appreciate you more legally informed brehs out there breaking down the nuance of these things for folks. because even the article doesn't articulate it well enough.