Current Events > Supreme Court Says Police May Use Evidence Found After Illegal Stops

(+) Yeah! (+)

Now here's the discrepancy:

Normally, if you stop somebody illegally, then you wouldn't be allowed to arrest him and the state wouldn't be able to charge him based on evidence they find during that

What this law says is that if the police stop somebody illegally and that person happens to have an outstanding warrant, then the outstanding warrant negates the illegal stop and the person can be searched even if the initial stop was illegal.

So basically if an officer stops you without just cause, and runs a random check and it turns out that you actually have an outstanding warrant of any type, then the officer can search you and anything he finds is fair game.

The original case here was one where a police officer stopped a guy illegally based on insufficient information. The officer then ran the guy's information and found a warrant for a minor traffic violation. The officer then searched the guy, found drugs, and then arrested him for drugs. The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence is admissible because he had a warrant which negates the fact that it was an illegal search - in other words, if you have an outstanding warrant for something, even something minor like failing to pay a parking ticket, then the cops can search you randomly and arrest you for an unrelated crime.

Just wanted to clear that up.

If you have an arrest warrant and the police officers are looking for you, then they can stop you, arrest you, and search you because there's a warrant out for your arrest

HOWEVER, the court in this case is working in a scenario where the officer *doesn't* know that there's an arrest warrant out for you - they're saying that it's OK for an officer to search you even if he stopped you illegally if he finds out there was a warrant out for your arrest *after* he stops you in the first place. In other words, they're saying that it's not a big deal he was stopped illegally because there was a warrant out for his arrest anyway and if a cop knew about that then he could stop you anyway, so the fact that the cop didn't know about your warrant until after he stopped you doesn't really change anything. That's their interpretation anyway.
---

To add:

If Officer A knows that there is an active arrest warrant out on Suspect B, then Officer A has just cause to stop Suspect B, arrest him, search him, and use anything they find against him.

If Officer A *doesn't* know that there's an arrest warrant out on Suspect B, then he technically has no just cause to search you.

What the court here is saying is that if Officer A stops Suspect B illegally and looks up that Suspect B has an active arrest warrant because he didn't pay child support, he THEN has the legal grounds to search Suspect B and use anything he has against him. The court's determination is that the order being reversed doesn't change the actual situation, which is that a person with an active arrest warrant can be searched. It just means that if a cop stops you randomly and it turns out that you have an active warrant, then his stop is now *made* legal even if it wasn't when he first stopped you.

Moral of the story I guess is to pay your fines
---

cjsdowg posted...

E32005 posted...

im ok with that since they are already wanted by law.

if they tried to use it any other stop; f*** no.

They don't now people have warrants until after they stop them.

Good thing they stopped those filthy criminals then so they could throw their asses in jail :^)

Now fuck off you criminal apologist. How many warrants you got out on you?
---

On a basic level how is anyone ok with losing liberty you previously had? That makes you a fool and a coward.
---

"The government is corrupt! They're taking away rights and we're becoming a police state!"

"Only the government should have guns!"

-the left
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

"The government is corrupt! They're taking away rights and we're becoming a police state!"

"Only the government should have guns!"

-the left

Can you ever have a point that isn't a counter attack? This is not a political issue, everybody's rights were reduced. How are you ok with having less rights?
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

On a basic level how is anyone ok with losing liberty you previously had? That makes you a fool and a coward.

Can somebody think of the poor criminals?!
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

"The government is corrupt! They're taking away rights and we're becoming a police state!"

"Only the government should have guns!"

-the left

That's only some of the left. The other part wants people to have guns so they can fight the corrupt police state.
---

DirkDiggles posted...

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

On a basic level how is anyone ok with losing liberty you previously had? That makes you a fool and a coward.

Can somebody think of the poor criminals?!

So you're fine with no Miranda warnings, no prohibition on torture of suspects to elicit confessions, no speedy trial. After all, a non criminal like you doesn't need those.
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

TheFireRises posted...

So if you're a criminal and the cops stop you, they can find out you are a criminal then you get in trouble?

I... don't see the problem

You don't see a problem with having your rights violated?

"oh sorry that dead body and kidnapped kid in the trunk was found during ilegal trafficl stop. sorry to bother you, have a nice day. "
---

If they have outstanding warrants? Fair next.
---

ModLogic posted...

"oh sorry that dead body and kidnapped kid in the trunk was found during ilegal trafficl stop. sorry to bother you, have a nice day. "

shit like that already has tons of exemptions and shit. there is literally no fucking way you're going to get off child kidnapping just because the stop was illegal.
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

So you're fine with no Miranda warnings, no prohibition on torture of suspects to elicit confessions, no speedy trial. After all, a non criminal like you doesn't need those.

Since when are they taking away any of those? You leftists are funny sometimes.
---

DirkDiggles posted...

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

So you're fine with no Miranda warnings, no prohibition on torture of suspects to elicit confessions, no speedy trial. After all, a non criminal like you doesn't need those.

Since when are they taking away any of those? You leftists are funny sometimes.

Why can't you answer a question?
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

Why can't you answer a question?

And what does any of those have to do with this? Can't you make an argument without using examples that have nothing to do with the case at hand? Those aren't being taking away so stop reaching.
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

DirkDiggles posted...

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

So you're fine with no Miranda warnings, no prohibition on torture of suspects to elicit confessions, no speedy trial. After all, a non criminal like you doesn't need those.

Since when are they taking away any of those? You leftists are funny sometimes.

Why can't you answer a question?

Because it is a stupid question that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
---

For the people who are ok with this because it "only hurts criminals". How about the innocent people who are not going to be harassed because the MIGHT have warrant.
---

cjsdowg posted...

For the people who are ok with this because it "only hurts criminals". How about the innocent people who are not going to be harassed because the MIGHT have warrant.

I don't see what the problem is. They aren't going to be harassed because they are innocent?
---

GuyCarlPeterson posted...

I don't see what the problem is. They aren't going to be harassed because they are innocent?

LOL
---

meh if it means catching even 1 extra druggie scumbag a year then still a good deal
---

ModLogic posted...

meh if it means catching even 1 extra druggie scumbag a year then still a good deal

So how about if we just throw around the 4th amendment. I mean it will help get more criminal off the streets.
---

It's pretty pathetic when people are completely fine with violation of rights because "LOL FUCK YOU LIBERALS!"

How fucking petty we've gotten as a country
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

"The government is corrupt! They're taking away rights and we're becoming a police state!"

"Only the government should have guns!"

-the left

Can you ever have a point that isn't a counter attack? This is not a political issue, everybody's rights were reduced. How are you ok with having less rights?

I say thing that need to be said. Leftists will in one breath talk about how corrupt our government is, about how cops are murdering innocent black people, etc. and then in the next breath call gun owners dumb hicks and say that only the cops/government should have them.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

I say thing that need to be said.

You've never said anything that has needed to be said. Ever.
---

John_Galt posted...

Anything that puts criminal scum behind bars is okay with me

Mass surveillance would catch more criminals, as would the repeal of the 4th Amendment. Maybe do away with the whole concept of search warrants as a whole, police are allowed to "randomly" search your house at any time. Are you OK with those? If so, you're a fucking fascist.
---

cjsdowg posted...

How about the innocent people who are not going to be harassed because the MIGHT have warrant.

cjsdowg posted...

So how about if we just throw around the 4th amendment.

Do you proofread anything?
---

Basically, if you have a warrant out on you, police receive probable cause
---

Well that seems like a bad idea. 1984 here we come
---

Someday we will come to regret how much we've trampled the 4th.
---

TheMikh posted...

Someday we will come to regret how much we've trampled the 4th.

Nah dissidents will be executed so there will be no one around to regret it.
---

mattnd2007 posted...

Well that seems like a bad idea. 1984 here we come

Lol
---

laugh all you want. it's classic frog in the pot.
---

That_Happened posted...

Do you proofread anything?

Why does it fucking matter to you. I am sick and tired of people like you always bitching about my fucking writing. Do I attack you for shit beyond your fucking control.
---

cjsdowg posted...

That_Happened posted...

Do you proofread anything?

Why does it fucking matter to you. I am sick and tired of people like you always bitching about my fucking writing. Do I attack you for shit beyond your fucking control.

Beyond your control? Are you dyslexic? And I'm not insulting you. I'm asking why your writing is almost always unreadable. If there is a neurological reason for it, then that's fine. But if not, and you're sick and tired of people commenting on it, then fix it.
---

Have to have a prior outstanding warrant which means you are going to jail anyways so why wouldn't they be able to search? The stop being illegal has nothing to do with anything when you are a fleeing fugitive. When they find you and detain you you then are open to a search of your person and at times subsequent seizures.
---

TheFireRises posted...

So if you're a criminal and the cops stop you, they can find out you are a criminal then you get in trouble?

I... don't see the problem

---

cjsdowg posted...

That_Happened posted...

Do you proofread anything?

Why does it fucking matter to you. I am sick and tired of people like you always bitching about my fucking writing. Do I attack you for shit beyond your fucking control.

You forgot two question marks.
---

DirkDiggles posted...

cjsdowg posted...

That_Happened posted...

Do you proofread anything?

Why does it fucking matter to you. I am sick and tired of people like you always bitching about my fucking writing. Do I attack you for shit beyond your fucking control.

You forgot two question marks.

more importantly, how is proof reading something beyond your control? and if you're just not that intelligent, how is improving that beyond your control?
---

Don't be a criminal and have warrants for your arrest. Also don't drive around with illegal things. Its not that hard people
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

"The government is corrupt! They're taking away rights and we're becoming a police state!"

"Only the government should have guns!"

-the left

Can you ever have a point that isn't a counter attack? This is not a political issue, everybody's rights were reduced. How are you ok with having less rights?

I say thing that need to be said. Leftists will in one breath talk about how corrupt our government is, about how cops are murdering innocent black people, etc. and then in the next breath call gun owners dumb hicks and say that only the cops/government should have them.

What the fuck do guns have to do with this?

Oh and thank you on behalf of America for telling like it is, your thoughts are so brave and original.
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

"The government is corrupt! They're taking away rights and we're becoming a police state!"

"Only the government should have guns!"

-the left

Can you ever have a point that isn't a counter attack? This is not a political issue, everybody's rights were reduced. How are you ok with having less rights?

I say thing that need to be said. Leftists will in one breath talk about how corrupt our government is, about how cops are murdering innocent black people, etc. and then in the next breath call gun owners dumb hicks and say that only the cops/government should have them.

What the fuck do guns have to do with this?

Oh and thank you on behalf of America for telling like it is, your thoughts are so brave and original.

He is pointing out how stupid liberals are.
---

GuyCarlPeterson posted...

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

"The government is corrupt! They're taking away rights and we're becoming a police state!"

"Only the government should have guns!"

-the left

Can you ever have a point that isn't a counter attack? This is not a political issue, everybody's rights were reduced. How are you ok with having less rights?

I say thing that need to be said. Leftists will in one breath talk about how corrupt our government is, about how cops are murdering innocent black people, etc. and then in the next breath call gun owners dumb hicks and say that only the cops/government should have them.

What the fuck do guns have to do with this?

Oh and thank you on behalf of America for telling like it is, your thoughts are so brave and original.

He is pointing out how stupid liberals are.

That's not a liberal argument. It is an "authoritarian" argument. I am a liberal and I think there should be much less gun prohibition, felons should be allowed to own and register firearms and that anyone with mental issues should be allowed to own a gun given they take a psychiatric evaluation at their expense (insurance might cover it, and this could be helpful for them anyways) every 6-8 months. I also believe gun awareness, and basic usage should be taught in gym class at school instead of archery.

I am a left libertarian. Still a liberal.
---

I don't care about the different labels you want to put on yourself but liberals are usually anti gun. Also, felons and people with mental health issues should not own guns. Specially felons.
---

Also, everyone believes in gun control we just disagree on the line.
---

GuyCarlPeterson posted...

I don't care about the different labels you want to put on yourself but liberals are usually anti gun. Also, felons and people with mental health issues should not own guns. Specially felons.

Most gun crime are done with illegal guns. Allowing a felon to register a firearm makes it more likely you will actually capture them if they are used in a crime (yes they will use their own registered firearm many times if it's possible just because many people are stupid), it protects their 2nd amendment rights, it prevents the theft of weapons, it damages black market dealers' profits selling illegal weapons. It doesn't have the effect that you would think it would on it's face. People with mental health issues still should have the ability to protect their 2nd amendment rights. The Constitution is for everyone.

Anti-gun liberals are authoritarian leftists or centrists.
---

GuyCarlPeterson posted...

I don't care about the different labels you want to put on yourself but liberals are usually anti gun. Also, felons and people with mental health issues should not own guns. Specially felons.

Why should mental illness mean you have less rights?
---

You say illegal guns but what you mean are stolen guns. Just because they could legally buy a gun that doesn't mean they are going to. Did you know up to 600,000 guns are stolen each year in America? They aren't used for shooting at the range most of the time either.
---

GuyCarlPeterson posted...

You say illegal guns but what you mean are stolen guns. Just because they could legally buy a gun that doesn't mean they are going to. Did you know up to 600,000 guns are stolen each year in America? They aren't used for shooting at the range most of the time either.

" "Did you know up to 600,000 guns are stolen each year in America? They aren't used for shooting at the range most of the time either" "

And all felons who used a firearm during the commission of a crime obtained stolen guns didn't they?

So how would allowing them to own and register firearms do anything but make it more likely to catch them if they use them wrongly? Why would this not inherently lead to a drop in stolen firearm numbers? Don't need as much stock if you don't have as many customers.
---

GAMER_X posted...

The funny thing about this story, is that not a single law abiding citizen will have any problems regarding this ruling.

ah the classic "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument.

Enjoy your Orwellian surveillance state.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

So how would allowing them to own and register firearms do anything but make it more likely to catch them if they use them wrongly? Why would this not inherently lead to a drop in stolen firearm numbers? Don't need as much stock if you don't have as many customers.

Less restrictions on who is allowed to legally purchase a firearm makes it easier to track who the perpetrator is during a gun crime.

I believe there should be more restrictions on who is allowed to SELL guns legally, and less restrictions on who is allowed to BUY guns.

But I'm also one of those people who thinks felons should be allowed to vote so w/e don't mind me.
---