Sotomayor’s Dissent in Utah v. Strieff
Back on June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Utah v. Strieff. The case centered around and arrest for drug possession in Utah. Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a South Salt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. The number of people he observed making brief visits to the house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants were dealing drugs. After observing respondent Edward Strieff leave the residence, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby parking lot, identifying himself and asking Strieff what he was doing at the house. He then requested Strieff’s identification and relayed the information to a police dispatcher, who informed him that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer Fackrell arrested Strieff, searched him, and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was derived from an unlawful investigatory stop. The trial court denied the motion, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, however, and ordered the evidence suppressed.
The Supreme Court reversed, in an opinion written by Clarence Thomas, holding that the connection between the unconstitutional investigatory stop of Mr. Strieff and the evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest was attenuated enough to allow the evidence to be admitted against Mr. Strieff.
Justice Sotomayor wrote her signature, thus far, dissent in this case: “The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. 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 war rants—even if you are doing nothing wrong. 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 arrest ing you on the warrant. Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent.”
You can read the full text of the decision here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf
